Political Theory

Re: indifference

Consultant — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 17:12:58 GMT

If you than consider being indifferent a preference, you've come full circle.

Re: indifference

Jeremiah Dyke — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 03:05:00 GMT

Good point, the wording was somewhat sloppy. could I reword to something of the nature of, to purposfully not do something is in fact an act...a deomnstrated preference, not an indifference?

Re: indifference

I. Ryan — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:54:00 GMT

Jeremiah Dyke:

Yet, to not act is indeed an action.

If you change that from "to not act is indeed an action" to "to not" move "is indeed an action", the problem goes away. (Or, more exactly, "to not" move might "indeed [be] an action".) It wouldn't make any sense to say that not acting is acting, just like wouldn't make any sense to say that a car isn't a car, or A isn't A.

I think that you probably are thinking of when Austrian School economists explain that acting doesn't necessarily involve movement, because someone could be purposefully refraining from moving their body, maybe because someone asked them to remain seated to demonstrate that they agree with them or something like that.

It is important to recognize the distinction into (a) movement and (b) action.

Re: indifference

Angurse — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:46:32 GMT

By the classification of types of action, I suppose.

indifference

Jeremiah Dyke — Thu, 05 Aug 2010 02:42:55 GMT

It occurred to me while listening to a Herbner lecture at MU.

If preference is demonstrated by action

And indifference is demonstrated by non-action

Yet, to not act is indeed an action

How could there ever be an indifference?