Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mmintl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
From: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <617@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 26-Aug-85 19:45:13 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.617
Posted: Mon Aug 26 19:45:13 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 29-Aug-85 23:41:55 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 12
Summary: There is no such thing


In article <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>> 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.
>
>Agreed.  That's why there are courts and judges, because NO system can
>define everything and every situation.  (Is that a fallout of Godel? :-)

The problem is that the principle of non-interference doesn't define
ANYTHING.  EVERYTHING interferes with other people.