3 ms·

Sure, but not choosing is a choice.

• mike_hearn 2y ago
  That's not really how language works. If not choosing to do something is a choice, then today we have all made an infinite number of choices. Nobody would ever express themselves that way. But even if you want to play word games, choices and actions aren't the same thing. Choosing to act is quantitively different from choosing not to act because it involves a different level of effort. It's wrong to assume that they are morally equal.
  • hollerith 2y ago
    >then today we have all made an infinite number of choices The way I like to think about it is that once a choice has risen to the level of conscious awareness, it is an illusion that a person can just decline to choose.
  • Timon3 2y ago
    This seems to be presuming that there is some clear delineation between acting and not acting, but going through some daily occurrences it's difficult for me to find an objective line, mostly because there are choices one could make that allow one to call something inaction while it requires active action. Say for example I'm passing by a beggar on my way to work. Before deciding whether I give them money, I can first decide to ignore or not ignore them. From a basic human perspective I want to say hello and be friendly (and I choose to do this), but it does make me feel worse if I decline than if I had ignored them, exactly because it makes it feel like a choice. But if I ignore them, can I call passing by without giving them money less of a choice? I only moved my choice up one level in the tree of all possible decisions I can make. Or, moving it to the example of the drowning man: imagine you're holding out your arm to see how long you can do it, and see the life ring flying towards you. If you choose not to act, it'll hang on your arm, and the person will drown. Is it nevertheless inaction on your part?