Simple answer No.
The Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics is a thought experiment that urges us to consider the ethical implications of awareness and inaction.
Despite sharing partial overlap with some philosophical beliefs, none adopt as firm a stance as holding that passive observation itself warrants interaction and places blame squarely on the observer.
Sources relevant toward this same topic.
From Immanuel Kant's, Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Akademie Edition Vol. 4, p. 420).
"It should not be assumed that a law propounds what is possible or >impossible for men, but only what is necessary for them as rational >creatures; and that therefore, if the possibility of the action is >questioned, it is only asked whether it is compatible with the nature >of a rational being as such"
From "Ethics" by Rachels and Rachels (2019):
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is concerned with questions >about what is good and bad, right and wrong. People sometimes use >these terms interchangeably—to say something is "good," for example, >might seem like another way of saying that it is "right." But there >is an important distinction between evaluating things as good or bad, >which falls under the heading of value theory, and judging whether >actions are morally right or wrong, which falls under the heading of >ethics proper. In other words, ethics deals with normative principles >concerning how people ought to behave toward each other, their >communities, and themselves. (p. 4)
From "An Introduction to Philosophy" by John Searle (2013):
We typically think of the domain of ethics as consisting of those >aspects of human life having to do with values, rights, duties, >obligations, and virtues. The word 'ethics', derived from the Greek >word 'ethos,' means character, custom, habit, disposition, or even >emotion. It has been used since ancient times to refer to systems of >conduct based on such features of human beings. A more technical term >for a system of conduct is 'moral code'. Thus, roughly speaking, >ethics is the study of moral codes. This raises immediately two >obvious questions: What is a moral code? And why should anyone care >about obeying its precepts? (p. 7)
Quote from Epictetus, Discourses, Book II, Chapter 5:
Some things are up to us, and others are not up to us. Our opinions >are up to us, and our impulses, desires, aversions — in short, >whatever is our own doing. Our bodies are not up to us, nor are our >possessions, our reputations, or our public offices, or, that is, >whatever is not our own doing.
Edmund Burke said "All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" which could be the closest concept to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Ethics. It should be noted that Burke was not being philosophical in this thought but rather religious.
This apocryphal quotation likely originated from the sermons of Anglican Bishop Thomas Fuller in the late seventeenth century.
"Remember this, That Evil prevailing is the Effect of either Absence >or Insufficiency of Good; and that Evil will never cease till Good >returns to supply that Want, or drive back that Oppression."
