Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <1624@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 13:31:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1624
Posted: Fri Aug 30 13:31:11 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:46:39 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 23

>>> 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.

Is my breathing "interfering" with your typing?  It seems that you have
as broad a definition of "interfere" as Wingate.  If you have to see it
or hear about it (horrors!!!) that's interference.  I don't buy that
for a second.  Interference is preventing another person from doing what
he/she likes that is not done at the expense of another person (through
interference with that person).  Yes, it's a self-referential, sort of
recursive definition.  I think we're all intelligent enough to fathom
this notion.
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr