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: <1732@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 18-Sep-85 12:10:46 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1732 Posted: Wed Sep 18 12:10:46 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 20-Sep-85 04:07:17 EDT References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP> <1624@pyuxd.UUCP> <637@mmintl.UUCP> <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> <653@mmintl.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 128 >>>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. [ADAMS] >>Nonsense. It would seem that you must first show how my shirt (or any of >>the other examples I offered) "interferes" with you. [ROSEN] > 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? [ADAMS] Certainly not that way. To use THAT definition would mean that everything in the world is "interfering" with me all the time. As I mentioned in another article, the view of minimal morality/non-interference seems to be viewed by some people in an egocentric way. "Don't interfere with ME, meaning anything I deem as interfering should be interfered with!" All you have done is to move the "interference" to another person (where in this case it may be real deliberate intervening interference and not just (what I consider the very babyish) "They're doing something I don't like; make them stop, mommy!" You have minimized interference to YOU, but maximized it to someone else. In weighing the balance here, which is more interfering: some person wearing a red shirt that you don't like, or you stopping him/her from wearing it in front of you because you don't like it. Now, contrast this with the following: "Which is more interfering? Some person forcibly restraining you and making you do something against your will, or inflicting harm upon you against your will? Or you (or others) stopping that person from engaging in this act, not just because you don't like it, but because it is an act of interference and harm against some person?" And of the two, which has reduced unnecessary interference against "law-abiding" human beings who don't bother other people? Necessary interference can only mean that interference which prevents people from harming others. >>>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. Can you answer the questions that the singer asks in this song? (Including the subsequent "Who are you to decide what MY best interests are?" etc. If you can't (as I suspect from your desire not have to hear these dreadful questions), then they are definitely worth asking and reiterating. >>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.) You got it. >>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. If a person wishes to stay and burn, who are you to tell him not to? Would you also forcibly prevent someone from committing suicide if you can't reason them out of it? It's quite another thing if the person is forcing others to die with him/her. > Also, a person stands on the top of building a threatens to jump. He is > forcibly restrained. This I would also consider justified. Also, a person speaks out against our obviously good government and society. Obviously this person is insane and should be taken away and helped for his/her own "best interests". This I would 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? Because a large majority of the human race has learned not to. Because they have been taught to fear any changes in society as being "dangerous" to their survival. (Who tells them this? Those "in charge" who benefit from the perpetuation of the societal "machine" as it is.) Because this indoctrination "teaches" people that it is better to be secure and interfere and "not take any chances" (i.e., increase the rigid security) than to allow personal freedom. Safer. Or so they tell you. And you wonder why people like Hitler and Nixon get elected? >>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. But this is clearly not the case with regard to those facets of society charged with lawmaking and enforcement. Ever wonder why speeding tickets are impossible to beat? (Virtually) Because the real court is not in the courtroom, it's out on the highway where you got the ticket. The townships and such need the money, so the deck is stacked. "It was a police officer who caught you, why would he lie? ... PSSST! Add one more to Officer Jack's credit list..." The law is now enforced, not to protect the people, but to protect the bureaucracy. Obviously not in all cases, but in enough that the harm is more than just "significant". > 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. And what contribution does interference offer or provide? > 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. Is "utilitarianism" a morality? Can any morality or societal code afford to be non-utilitarian? I hardly think so. -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com