Prompt: As discussed in the intro to this unit, the law relies heavily on the distinction between an act and an omission. However, philosophers have challenged this distinction (asking if there really is a meaningful difference between the two).

1. For this forum, first briefly explain in own words why acts are treated differently than omissions in the law.

2. Next, explain why some argue that acts aren't truly different than omissions (again, in

own words).

3. Then, explain which view you think is the most accurate by briefly analyzing the judge's decision in McFall v. Shimp (in other words, did the judge make the right decision considering you're - well supported - view on the acts v. omissions debate).