That presumes that it's their responsibility to hold them accountable or, at least, that the other option is free. Given that you haven't shown either of those, and the statements point to the contrary, it's fair to say they are not complicit.
So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally? This is coming back full circle to "has no morals".
> So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally?
I see you cut the first part, only to follow with a "only" qualitative. That's not an honest nor moral thing to do. Specially given you still have to prove their moral obligations about the matter. Saying that they've chosen the risk minimizing option is a non sequitur.
That presumes that it's their responsibility to hold them accountable or, at least, that the other option is free. Given that you haven't shown either of those, and the statements point to the contrary, it's fair to say they are not complicit.
So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally? This is coming back full circle to "has no morals".
> So morals only matter depending on how easy a decision is to make and how it won't affect you personally?
I see you cut the first part, only to follow with a "only" qualitative. That's not an honest nor moral thing to do. Specially given you still have to prove their moral obligations about the matter. Saying that they've chosen the risk minimizing option is a non sequitur.