[josephcsible]

> It builds outrage and fear off the idea what the state is doing is completely unprecedented. However, that's not entirely true. That's what I find intellectually dishonest.

Fair, although there is one other angle from which I think this is unprecedented: aren't those other restrictions all things that you can't do, with this being the first one that's something that you have to do? For example, consider freedom of speech. Exceptions that compel speech are much rarer than exceptions that prohibit speech.

[framecowbird]

Yeah that's super interesting. Is an action morally any different to a lack of action?

This is like the train trolley: where you can either phrase it as doing nothing, or pushing a lever. People apply much more stringent moral codes when there is action involved, or even when the fat man is actually pushed by hand.

[s1artibartfast]

I think this exactly the distinction. A lot of people frame their worldview which places value and judgement on the action, while freeing someone from responsibility for their inaction (deontological ethics). This is also common but not exclusive in many legal system (e.g. it is not murder for a bystander to not save a life/pull the lever).

I think this is coming into conflict with rising a utilitarism and consequentialist ethical worldview in the united states. Neither system is perfet, but one challenge of the consequentialist worldview is that it holds people accountable for sub-optimal behavior. (e.g. it is murder to not pull the lever, or not donate to save that starving child in Africa).

Without getting too off track, I think the conflict between these two ethical views is a big driver of the tone of discusource and current ideological conflicts in the US, be it public health, racical justice, and the role of the government.