Quote of the day

[Magical Realist]

The choice was made not to save the drowning man. It's deliberate and hence ethically liable. It wasn't a non-choice that was somehow still a choice.

[Syne]

The choice was made not to save the drowning man. It's deliberate and hence ethically liable. It wasn't a non-choice that was somehow still a choice.

No, you were just indecisive...until the man drowned. Just like the dog owners and parents were negligent...until the child died. Neither case would require a conscious and deliberate choice.
Or are you saying you would make the deliberate choice to let a man die?

[Magical Realist]

The choice was made not to save the drowning man. It's deliberate and hence ethically liable. It wasn't a non-choice that was somehow still a choice.

No, you were just indecisive...until the man drowned. Just like the dog owners and parents were negligent...until the child died. Neither case would require a conscious and deliberate choice.
Or are you saying you would make the deliberate choice to let a man die?

It was a choice made for whatever reason. Not acting can be a choice. Not choosing can't be a choice. That's why its called not choosing.

[Syne]

No, you were just indecisive...until the man drowned. Just like the dog owners and parents were negligent...until the child died. Neither case would require a conscious and deliberate choice.
Or are you saying you would make the deliberate choice to let a man die?

It was a choice made for whatever reason. Not acting can be a choice. Not choosing can't be a choice. That's why its called not choosing.

It pains me that this needs to be pointed out. Not choosing is an act.
Indecision is not a conscious choice. Having greater priorities is not a conscious choice. But both are acts, and as such are effectively still choices, as you cannot act without some motive factor. Even if forced by external factors, you must still chose to acquiesce.

Seems you're just stuck in the simplistic notion that "choice" and "no choice" are antonyms.

Not choosing is a choice, although we don't usually think of it that way or treat it that way.

The fallacy is that by not making a choice, we think we are keeping our options open. We think of this state of being as having power, because we are withholding our commitment. We think we can bestow our commitment on some choice in the future.
...
What happens is that we allow others' commitments, intentions and priorities to fill the void left by our own lack of commitment, priority and choice.
- https://www.huffpost.com/entry/the-most-..._b_7548404

I assume all this is still completely beyond your comprehension. And there's a self-justifying reason for that.

[Magical Realist]

Not choosing is an act.

No it isn't. Choosing is an act. Not choosing is not an act.

Let's say I was laying in the sun getting a tan with music earphones on. I had no knowledge of anyone drowning. Hence I made no choice about it. Was that therefore a choice? Absolutely not. It was simply not making a choice. Hence no choice is simply no choice. It is not a choice to make no choice.

[Syne]

Do you really think any of these are talking about not making a choice in the complete absence of knowledge that the choice even exists?

“I can always choose, but I ought to know that if I do not choose, I am still choosing.”
― Jean-Paul Sartre, Existentialism and Human Emotions

“When you have to make a choice and don’t make it, that is in itself a choice.”
― William James

If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
― Neil Peart

If so, now that is convoluted.

Not making a choice when there is no possibility to make a choice is a meaningless truism. It's true of a whole universe of things, and completely devoid of any practical or ethical meaning.

As a practical and ethically meaningful matter, not making a choice only exists where there is a possibility of making a choice, e.g. you have some idea the choice exists. You have choice A and B, but you opt for neither. You can't opt out of a choice you don't know exists.

For example, why were the dogs in the garage, instead of the yard or the house?

Without careful socialization, a Mastiff may be suspicious of everyone. This can lead to either aggression or shyness, and both attitudes are dangerous in a giant breed. - https://www.yourpurebredpuppy.com/reviews/mastiffs.html

That would suggest that the owners had some idea the dogs could be aggressive. And unless they were complete morons, they'd also know young boys' love of dogs. Hence they had a choice, and neglected to take the proper precautions.

The parents also should have taught him not to mess with strange dogs. Again, if they weren't complete morons, they'd be aware of the possibility of aggressive dogs. Hence they had a choice, and neglected to teach some basic safety lessons.


But if you insist on making the most naive and meaningless argument available, go right ahead. I can't make a horse drink.

[Magical Realist]

You have choice A and B, but you opt for neither. You can't opt out of a choice you don't know exists.

No..you don't opt out of anything when not making a choice. To opt is another word for choose, and as I've said, we don't choose when we don't make a choice. You can opt to do something, or opt to not do it, but you can't opt for not opting. Not making a choice is simply not opting for anything. It is what it is--not making a choice. And its something we do all the time.

[Syne]

You're obviously far too dense to grasp this very simple concept.

[Magical Realist]

I think we disgree in that when we choose not to do something, you see this as not making a choice but I see it as making a choice. We can always choose between doing something and not doing something. But the not doing is what we choose. It is part of making the choice. It isn't not making a choice. Hence people are ethically liable in what they choose not to do. You say this is ultimately a choice that is made, and I agree, only I don't believe it was ever anything other than a choice that is made. It was never a non-choice.

[Syne]

Well, hope you had fun playing your pointless semantic game. Why anyone would want to play games that make them look legitimately dumb is beyond me.