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: <1625@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 13:42:27 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1625
Posted: Fri Aug 30 13:42:27 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:46:58 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <549@utastro.UUCP> <607@mmintl.UUCP> <584@utastro.UUCP> <619@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 34

>>>This really doesn't help.  Which curtailings of freedoms are "less" than
>>>which other curtailments?  Only within a moral system can this be answered.
>>>(For an individual, one can ask his or her preference.  This doesn't work
>>>when more than one person is involved.)  Thus the principle of non-
>>>interference cannot be the *basis* for a moral system. [ADAMS?]

>>No one said that making the decisions would be easy. Fortunately, we have
>>past experience to refer to. Also society can as a whole decide what
>>is acceptable.  [HOULAHAN]

> I didn't ask for it to be easy.  I asked for it to *be derived from the
> principle*.  The decisions of society as a whole form a basis for choice
> which is not so derived.  Past experience is useful for making the decision
> making process easier, but it is not itself a *basis* for decisions. [ADAMS]

The point is that it's NOT derived from the principle.  The principle is
the theory.  If we were dealing with a non-interference morality on another
planet with totally different terrain and totally different life forms,
the results would be different.  The principles are applied to the needs
and desires of human beings on THIS planet.  THEN you get the morality itself.

>>If you are unhappy that there isn't someone ready to tell you unambiguously
>>what's right, and what's wrong, then that's too bad. It does not
>>invalidate the system though.

> Please try to avoid the ad hominem attacks.

It seems that not only do you have a broad definition of interference (see
last article), you also have an equally broad definition of "ad hominem
attacks".  But then a lot of people on the net are of the opinion that anyone
who expresses disagreement is engaging in ad hominem attacks...
-- 
"Meanwhile, I was still thinking..."
				Rich Rosen  ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr