Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!psuvax1!berman
From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <1699@psuvax1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 17:14:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax1.1699
Posted: Mon Aug 26 17:14:44 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 07:24:54 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 50

> 
> There is a problem with the principle of non-interference as a basis
> for morality: it is insufficient.  There are a great many cases where
> there is an interaction between two or more people, where it is not
> clear whether interference has taken place, or who has interfered with
> whom.
> 
> Consider an example.  Joe likes to go out in his back yard in the nude.
> Jim, who lives next door, finds this offensive -- not because he disapproves
> of nudity, but because he likes to sit in his backyard, and finds looking
> at Jim unappealing.  Is Joe "interfering" with Jim?  If Jim calls the police
> to get Joe arrested, is he "interfering"?
> 
The example here is flawed.  One may find looking at his mather-in-law
unappealing, regardless whether nude or not.  
A better  example would be the following.
Imagine that Joe cuts his wrist in the same backyard.
Shall Jim interfere and talk Joe to abandon his suicide?
Or, is borrowing a lawn mower an interference?

On the other hand, one may the following reasoning.  If one proposes a moral
principle, he/she has in mind a concept which is ethically appealing, at
least to some people.  The name of a concept by necessity is a mental
shorthand.  Thus to merely deduce a contradiction from the name of principle,
and not from the broader explanation of underlying intentions and values
is unfair.

The way I would motivate the principle of not interference is that the freedom
is one of the precious commodities a human may posess.  Thus we should not
UNNECESARILY restrict our freedom.  By "do not interfere" I would mean
"do not restrict freedom of thy neighbour".

The fact that the principle is not sufficient is not necesserily a flow.
It may be the case that it is impossible to reduce morality to a small
collection of hierarchically ordered principles.  The reason is that 
humans are social beings.  Thus common good is a value.  On the other 
hand, common good is a sum of individual well-beings.  Even if the
numerical values of each individual well-beings are clear (and they
are not), the maximizing the sum (minimum, geometrical average?) of well-
-beings would pose a difficult optimization problem.

Thus inherently we will have a conflicts of values and gray areas of
no clear choices.  It seems that there is a trade off between clarity
of a moral system and the range of gray areas.

Of course, there may besome people do order their principles in strict 
hierarchies, thus resolving all the conflicts once for all.  I personally
do not believe in such an approach.

P.B.