What facade of reponsability? Their responsibility was not being complicit in the crime and they accomplished just that. It's not their responsibility to prosecute their employer, specially if it comes with significant risks to their life.
What facade of reponsability? Their responsibility was not being complicit in the crime and they accomplished just that. It's not their responsibility to prosecute their employer, specially if it comes with significant risks to their life.
He was complicit when he knowingly made the choice that would have no accountability.
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?
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.