What is a political issue that you want to understand the opposite viewpoint more?

[palou]

Zkuq said:

palou said:

1. Also - why treat action and inaction differently? What, specifically, differentiates the two?

 

2. I feel that any choice we make should be measured by evaluated by simply looking at decisions as a set of probability fields, evaluating the ideal situation to your specific choices.

1. At first glance, they seem entirely different to me. What makes you think they're the same?

Think train dillemma. 

 

On a more political note: Suppose someone is dying of a fairly preventable disease somewhere near by, helping them would make you lose around 500$ (due to lost time), you decide that it's not worth it. That, to many, is not an action, and while assholish - in the right of the person. On the contrary, suppose you kill the for a prime of 500$. That, to many, is seen as an action, and should definitely send you to jail.

Looking at the 2 situations, there seems to be an equivalent choice, in terms of a decision tree based on outcome. They both chose a situation in which they came out with 500$ more, at the cost of a life.