"Doing nothing is not an option" is a very dangerous principle. Doing nothing is always an option worth considering and something that needs to be realistically compared about the proposed alternatives. The cure can easily be worse than the disease, and we have many historical examples of well-intended changes turning out more horrible than the problems they tried to fix. Quite often it happens that you are in (at least) a local optimum, and every change will be immediately worse in the short-term; and if you don't have a good reason to presume how exactly you'll get to an actually better scenario then simply "doing something" for the sake of doing something is outright evil and destructive and having good ill-informed intent is not a sufficient justification for harming people with the attempt to fix something. As the Hippocratic oath says, "first, do no harm" - it also isn't an absolute principle, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs, but at the very least you have a very strong ethical responsibility to be sure that the outcome is really worth the harm.

The current system has many drawbacks, but it can easily be much worse, and most (all?) attempts of "tear everything down and rebuild" will be much worse at least for a non-trivial time - and there needs to be a very good, reliable argument the expected long-term result is really going to work in order to justify that certain harm in the face of uncertainty that there's going to be any improvement and quite some evidence that the long-term result often is not only not better, but clearly worse. "Doing nothing is not an option" is not an ethical justification if your "doing" harms someone, and making random radical changes to status quo without properly evaluating the realistically expected consequences (without wishful thinking and unrealistically optimistic assumptions) is simply irresponsible and unethical even if the current system has severe flaws.