Is there such a thing as "non-action"? I'm sure you've all heard this hypothetical scenario: A train is barreling towards a junction where (unless you intervene) it will go down one path and kill two people who are tied down. However, there is a switch you can toggle that will send the train instead down another path. Unfortunately, a small child is tied up on this second path! Do you leave the switch alone, allowing the train to kill the two people, or do you purposefully direct the train towards the other path (putting responsibility for the death of the small child solely in your hands)? This scenario is meant to bring up the question of whether non-action can render you morally liable. My question to you all, however, is slightly different: Is there such a thing as "non-action" to begin with? In other words, regardless of whether not it is practical, plausible, or even possible to do some action, shouldn't we consider the choice to not do it to be an action in itself? I don't see any valid reason to distinguish between "doing" and "not doing". Thoughts?