Absolutely not.
We all have to make personal decisions about safety and risk, for our own unique situation.
While not in the US, I’m a straight, white, middle-aged dude. My risk in loudly speaking out is probably still orders of magnitude lower than yours is by staying quiet. If there are any moral decisions to be made, I’d say that it’s my moral duty to use my overly-consequential and protected voice to stand up for the vulnerable and suffering.
There is no moral flaw in trying to survive within your means - and if that means keeping your head down, then hopefully I and many others will have your back.
I’m not saying it’s a “stupid question”, but I don’t understand it. How and why could it possibly be considered “wrong” or even a moral issue at all to keep a low profile?? Saying/doing nothing is our natural state, no one can say it’s bad to just neutrally exist! Don’t let anyone tell you you have to speak up, especially if it endangers or harms yourself or your friends and family.
If you’re referring to the current US administration, they’re not acting lawfully and are currently trying to arrest or deport legally-protected people and even citizens! You don’t owe them or anyone else anything, certainly not at the expense of you or your family! When you’re acting defensively and protecting yourself, it’s not immoral. This is how hostile to immigrants we’ve become that you are even asking this question… ☹️
TL;DR: Absolutely not. You do you, and be safe!
Here’s an example: in the us, international students are now required to have public social media accounts before they’re allowed in. Unclear what happens if they don’t have any accounts at all, but they’re not allowed to have private social media accounts anymore.
Edit: wait I just woke up, this thread was about morality. My bad.
This depends entirely on your prescribed system of ethics.
Duty-based ethical systems would say yes, because you have a duty to speak out.
Point utilitarianism would say no, because the good outweighs the bad for that scenario.
The other utilitarianism of which I can’t remember the umbrella term would say yes, because it’s better for everyone if people speak out.
My understanding of Kant is that the unethical act is being performed by the government and that it is not morally wrong to keep a low profile.
TLDR: If you’re asking, the answer is no. If you’re being pedantic, the answer is “it depends”
No. This is simply self-preservation.
No. It is never morally wrong to ensure your own safety.
“But those who allowed nazis to come to power were doing just that!”
…no. Most of those weren’t ensuring their safety. They were ensuring their own comfort (in the beginning, at least)
If a regime is targeting you or your loved ones: Lay low. If the regime is targeting someone else: Resist, especially if at worst you’re gonna get a slap on the wrist.
Yup, this is why allies are so important. It’s the ally’s job to be angry and belligerent when the targeted group can’t. When the targeted group needs to keep their head down, that’s when allies should be the loudest. The ally’s largest point is that they’re beyond reprisal, because they don’t belong to the targeted group.
If someone throws a slur at your friend, that friend may not be able to speak up out of fear of further harassment and/or retaliation. Also, any anger they show will be DARVO’ed around and used to paint them as the aggressor. It will be used to confirm any stereotypes that the bigot already holds; fascists and bigots regularly weaponize decorum, by saying/doing awful things to marginalized groups while pretending to be civil. Then when those people get angry, the fascist turns it around and makes the targeted group look unreasonable. When the victim needs to maintain decorum, that’s when the ally should step up.
A great example of this in action can be found here. Rep Sarah McBride is openly transgender, and Keith Self intentionally misgenders her during her introduction. Sarah throws back a quick “thank you Madam Chair” (misgendering Self) joke in response, but then leaves it at that. Rep William Keating quickly recognizes what is going on, and asks Self to repeat the introduction using McBride’s chosen pronouns. At this point, McBride steps back and doesn’t say anything else; Any anger or belligerence she shows will be used by Self to justify further marginalizing trans people. Self tries to come up with a loose explanation, but quickly flees the situation when it becomes obvious that Keating isn’t going to let the flimsy reasoning stand. Self immediately adjourns the meeting, but he only does this because Keating is the one pushing back; If McBride had been the one to push back, Self would have dug his heels in and used it to grab anti-trans soundbites for later campaigns.
i agree in principle, but that clip leaves a lot of nuance out. if taken to the small scale, pretend you’re trying to get into a bar with a trans friend and someone says some transphobic remark… yes, you have more power to make a scene than your friend, but being in a minority group can feel like a constant fight… they might not want to make a scene, to fight; they might just want to drop it and get on with their night in that moment
going above and beyond like keating did is admirable if they know it’s what mcbride wanted, but it could also have been more upsetting to a lot of people than just replying with the quick quip and getting on with their day
point absolutely stands though that allies are hugely important because they have the ability to say and do things in ways that get both more attention and less retribution
A big part of the nuance you mention is that Keating was not only defending McBride, but also defending the dignity (what little there may be) of the US legislative body, and fulfilling his role as a publicly elected representative to advocate for the interests of the people he represents.
Also, while I do believe Keating deserves way more public attention and praise for this than I have seen, I would not say that he went “above and beyond” by defending McBride. He did what should have been done by anyone in his position.
Sure, there’s always the “time and place” consideration to be made. If you tried to start a fight every time someone disagreed with you, you’d never get anywhere in life. But that’s really a different discussion.
I don’t think it’s morally wrong — it’s just human nature to want to survive. Not everyone has the same level of safety or privilege to speak out. Sometimes staying quiet is the only realistic option.
If I broke into your house holding a knife would it be morally wrong for you to hide in the wardrobe?
I’d add that they also have your roommate at knife point. I don’t think it changes the answer too much, but it’s closer to the scenario that OP is probably thinking about.
No, it’s okay to keep your head down.
Do you blame the Jews for hiding from the Nazis and even trying to look as non Jewish as possible? No? Exactly.
No. Let the white people (like me) who were born here (like me) continue to speak out on behalf of people being brutalized. Keep your head down. Stay safe.
Are you asking if it’s morally wrong for someone to save their own arse from an opressive government?
Because I’ve read a lot of comments online, especially Lemmy, saying that (paraphrased) “they are gonna come for you eventually, so you might as well start resisting now” and “if you don’t take up arms against your oppressors, you deserve whatever happens”
These are short sighted reactionary takes from people who think resisting is nothing more than voting and protesting, they say to take up arms but never talk about organizing together with arms, so what they’re really asking for is a mass shooting to make them feel good. Resistance isnt a monolith and requires more than just physically showing up to protests and town halls. Beyond that the same people accusing of others of not speaking up would have likely been just as shitty to the people in ww2 who kept quiet because they hid jews in their houses. I tell this type of person all the time, you don’t know someones situatuon, don’t do ICEs job for them simply because you don’t think someone is being loud enough.
It’s important to support those in your community that have the target on them before the target gets placed on you. Once the target is on you and the community has failed you keep yourself safe.
Fair enough. No, it’s not morally wrong. Also you said to keep a low profile. That doesn’t mean you don’t do anything if your identity is protected.
Regardless of whether you’re in a part of the country where the effects of you speaking up won’t have as much consequence, I don’t think it’s morally wrong to try and keep yourself, friends, family, and loved ones safe by not speaking out.
You should know that in many countries, and now also the U.S., the government will revoke the visa of “political irritants”. In other words, your question is actually a historical one, and it is equivalent to, “Is it immoral to immigrate?”
It’s morally wrong to make them feel the need to hide. What someone decides to do with their free speech is up to them.
Correct.
Free speech encloses the right to say nothing.
No, it’s morally wrong to contribute to the circumstances in which that would be a logical action
