People who are apathetic are overall bad for society. They don't contribute to the advancement of ideas or the advancement of humanity. Apathy allows oppression to take place, oppression is immoral. People need to care for anyone to survive or be healthy. You cant raise a child successfully if you are apathetic towards that child. You are taking away from an innocent with your apathy. You are taking away from society with your apathy.
Immorality is not conforming with the general morals. It is perfectly fine and accepted to be apathetic to ocher's misfortune or even small scale tragedies like fatal car accidents that have no connection to you. Now, if your father, who never mistreated you and was a constant support/pillar of the community, died tragically and you are apathetic to that, it becomes immoral. But, I definitely can't agree with miketheman1200.
He suggests that those who are apathetic are the dregs of society who cause society to become stagnant and to begin the rot. He even brings it to personal life and how it influences children, ruining their innocence. This, in my opinion couldn't be any more incorrect.
Apathy is the lack of care, of emotion, of empathy/sympathy for your fellow man. I could even be considered apathetic for the most part, only showing care for my family. I believe that apathy is something that sparks progress and is the key to efficiency. For example, Josef Mengele, the 'Angle of Death'. His apathy towards the Jews, often the victims of his experiments, led to a 'boom' of advancement in the medical fields. While others were chained by their morals and basic disgust of the process, Josef's apathy allowed him to do what others could not.
Even if not taken to the extreme like that, even if they don't spark innovations, they still need to uphold jobs to provide for themselves and their families. They contribute to society by holding a stable job and raising their young children to be young adults who later join the workforce as well. Children bring up another subject Mike touched on.
Mike mentioned how apathy will not lead to the optimal childhood and insinuated that it would instead have adverse affects on the child. I can't see it this way. Apathy would lead to a situation in which there would be no favoritism, it would all be cold and calculated reason (though this does not mean that all who are apathetic are logical or make the right decisions all the time considering that what is right is subjective and to each their own). While the child may feel unloved, you may assume he would be brought up to be resolute and to be determined with their morals (which he/she more than likely inherits from the parents).
While the child may lack the love and affection that people now-a-days seem to believe children require, he would have to opportunity to grow up to be a successful gear in society's machinery. He/she wouldn't be brought down by apathetic parents but, in my opinion, would just be a 'different breed' as you may put it. Anyways, it all depends on the person's morals/personality, not whether they show emotion.
To imply that apathy is immoral would be to say that not caring about any particular issue is immoral. Because apathy is the state of indifference, it is not usually total. You also mentioned that it is immoral because apathetic people don't contribute much to society, but if you really think about it, what have you are nearly anyone on the planet done that matters? Furthermore, there is no responsibility to care about suffering, not caring is not taking a stance, but the lack of a stance, how can apathy be immoral when apathy isn't a stance or an action?
Asking if apathy is immoral is pretty black and white. Apathy about what? Maybe some things are worth being apathetic about, whereas other things it's harmful to not care. It's harmful to be apathetic about the health of the planet, since we all live on it, but it's not harmful to be apathetic about... I don't know... someone's spilled milk.
Apathy is more like a opinion. People have different things to be apathetic about, so how is it possible to decide if it is immoral or not. For example a person is sympathetic on cancer patients but apathetic on starving people.While another person has the opposite opinion.Who has the right to decide which one is immoral?
I don't know if you mean apathy over everything or what, but there all things we just don't give a damn about. Not caring about your own child, is bad, not caring over if a historic building get torn down or not, doesn't hurt anyone. I could give you a better answer for the question if you worded it better. But obviously you were apathetic about if people would understand you.