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: <1726@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 22:21:30 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1726 Posted: Tue Sep 17 22:21:30 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Sep-85 03:57:54 EDT References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP> <1624@pyuxd.UUCP> <637@mmintl.UUCP> <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> <232@umich.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 54 >>>... This [principle, by itself] 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. ... [ROSEN] > Frank Adams is right. As a first attempt to explain why, contrast an act > that intuitively seems like unfair interference: inflicting severe pain. > In the red shirt example, we have photons from my shirt entering your eyes > and registering a sensation in your mind that you (for some reason) dislike. > In the infliction of pain example, though, the physical description of what's > going on might be almost the same -- only this time I'm shining a bright > light into your eyes (almost, but not quite, bright enough to cause permanent > vision impairment)! [TOREK] Are you restraining me from looking away, or moving elsewhere? If so, then you are harming me. If not, then I'll just go elsewhere. Unless of course, you're on my property doing this, in which case you'll go elsewhere. How are you being harmed by my wearing a red shirt, even if you don't like it? Why are you out to introduce problems where none exist? > Presumably Rich will say that the very bright light in the eyes is inter- > ference, but the red shirt isn't. But ON WHAT OBJECTIVIE BASIS can this > distinction be drawn? The principle of non-interference cannot supply the > criteria. Some other criteria must be at work. I just gave criteria. If someone is wearing a red shirt and I don't like it, I can always not look. If someone is forcing me to stare into a bright light that causes me physical harm (forcing, as in restraining me and leaving me no choice, or shining the light on my property in my personal space, or in a public thoroughfare traversed by many people, that is clearly an act of interference. Not nearly as complex as you seem to want to make it. Personal dislike and inconvenience are NOT examples of deliberate interfering harm by any stretch of the imagination. If this stretching the notion of harm were taken to deliberate extremes (for the purpose of restricting people's freedom?), you could just as easily say that the car in front of you at the intersection sitting there while you want to turn right on red is "interfering" with you. The way you seem to be treating the notion of minimal interference is egocentric: "minimal interference with ME". The goal is minimal interference to all. When you claim that the example I just gave (or the red shirt example) is worth restricting, you are interfering in that person's life. Why? Because someone is being harmed and interfered with? Or because someone childishly doesn't like it? Since you're anxious to make the problem tough, let's make it so. Suppose it wasn't a red shirt this guy wanted to wear. Suppose he wanted to wear a red dress. What then? In what way is he interfering with you? In what way do you feel you should be able to interfere with him? Maybe this is meatier and less hypothetical than "bright lights" versus "red shirts". -- "Meanwhile, I was still thinking..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com