Common sense is right; acts and omissions are not morally equivalent.
-
-
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10 What leads to that conclusion? (Not disagreeing; curious.)1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness I think acts involve a certain presumption that one has a full & complete model of the situation.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@Meaningness Such that one should only act if one has competence to know one's act is beneficial.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10 Ah. Thanks! FWIW I’m skeptical that it is possible to act so little…2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
@Meaningness No principled distinction there. But there is a common sense distinction all the same. Exists in tort law too I think.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@simplic10 Yes, I agree that it’s an important distinction intuitively! (And don’t believe ethical principles are overriding.)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.