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: <653@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Fri, 13-Sep-85 20:10:42 EDT Article-I.D.: mmintl.653 Posted: Fri Sep 13 20:10:42 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 16-Sep-85 21:08:58 EDT References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP> <1624@pyuxd.UUCP> <637@mmintl.UUCP> <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 80 In article <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> 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. It causes me to have experiences I do not wish to have, which I would not have had without your actions. How do you define interference? >> 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???? I had hoped to forstall this response by making it obvious it was expected. Obviously, I failed. >How do YOU >know what my best interests are?" Just thought I'd make it clear. You don't. (I assume you mean I don't know what your best interests are, not I don't make it clear.) >Can you give a real example of where such interference, even if, as you say, >it makes someone "better off", is justified? All right. A family lives in a house which is about to be destroyed by a forest fire. They do not wish to leave. The police forcibly evict them. In my opinion, this action is justified. Also, a person stands on the top of building a threatens to jump. He is forcibly restrained. This I would also consider 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? Well, if it's obvious, why does only a tiny minority of the human race believe 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. That does not imply that such systems do harm on balance. A bureacracy may spend 99% of its effort perpetuating itself, and still do enough good with the other 1% to justify their existence. Also, one should judge by the total contribution over the life of the system, not by the final state. Chances are, in the final state, the system *is* doing more harm than good -- that is why such systems get abolished. Human institutions aren't static. In any event, this is a bit beside the point. If you justify non-interven- tionism on utilitarian grounds, then the morality is utilitarianism, and the rights are derived from the morality, as I stated. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108 Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com