In his 1999 speech at the White House, Elie Wiesel asserts that indifference is a “friend of the enemy” that always “benefits the aggressor.” His definition suggests that apathy is just as bad as direct violence.

Indifference could be considered unnatural because it requires a lack of empathy and compassion. Human beings have an altruistic component that is integral to their nature. Unlike almost other species, humans are often willing to do good things even when they don’t directly benefit from these acts. Therefore, one could argue that indifference is contrary to human instincts.

On the other hand, indifference is the absence of opinion. Many people don’t have strong opinions on controversial topics because their lives are not influenced. This tendency to prioritize one’s own needs over the suffering of others is borne from an underlying natural selection. It is easier to thrive when one ignores the needs of others, whose suffering bears no direct impact on one’s daily life.

Since this is an opinion question, you need to decide whether indifference is good or bad and why. I would suggest thinking of examples in which indifference is bad and examples in which indifference is good. This might help you reach a conclusion.

I would define indifference as a state in which you do not care about something -- you do not care about what happens in a given situation or to a given person.

I think that you could say that indifference is unnatural because (you can argue) people are naturally inclined to care about things.  I think that people naturally want to take sides and "root" for one side or another in just about all conflicts.

However, Wiesel is saying that we can only be indifferent if we do not think that other people truly are people.