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: <1664@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 9-Sep-85 23:07:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1664
Posted: Mon Sep  9 23:07:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 11-Sep-85 05:33:33 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP> <1624@pyuxd.UUCP> <637@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 43

> All I can get out of this principle, taken alone, is that anything one
> person wishes to do, which does not interfere with *anything* that
> *anyone* else wants, is permissable.  This has some content, but not
> very much.  It doesn't let you wear a red shirt in public, because someone
> may not like to see it.  It doesn't even let you appear in public. [ADAMS]

Is seeing something you don't like an act of interference?  Do you have the
right to destroy anything that "offends" your sensibilities?  Of course not.
Not liking something isn't an act of interference against you.  You are free
to continue living your life as you wish regardless of the presence of one
person's religion, another person's sexual preference, or my red shirt.

> Now, you may respond, "but my wearing a red shirt is clearly my right, and
> someone stopping me is clearly interfering."  But it is only from a pre-
> existing moral system that you can make that claim.  Thus you can't use
> the principle of non-interference to derive a moral system.

Nonsense.  It would seem that you must first show how my shirt (or any of
the other examples I offered) "interferes" with you.

> While I'm at it, there's another problem with the principle.  It is
> possible for person A to interfere with person B in a way that person
> B does not want, such that person B is better off for it.

"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????  How do YOU
know what my best interests are?"  Just thought I'd make it clear.  You don't.
Can you give a real example of where such interference, even if, as you say,
it makes someone "better off", is justified?

> Now if, as you seem to, you are arguing from a basically utilitarian point
> of view, you may argue that it is better off over all to apply the principle,
> at least to adults, since the errors of commision will override the errors
> of omission.  This may be true, but it is far from obvious.

What's not obvious about it?  Any regulatory system you can think of that
has ever come about has eventually become a bureaucracy interested at least
as much in its own perpetuation as in its supposed intended purpose.  With that
in mind, clearly the less "regulation", the better.  Until someone can show a
solid benefit that increased restriction offers (Charley insists that it makes
a morality "stronger"), I see no reason to hold any other position.
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr