Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!umcp-cs!mangoe
From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <1652@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 20:54:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.1652
Posted: Fri Sep 20 20:54:00 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 25-Sep-85 05:33:24 EDT
References: <1732@pyuxd.UUCP>
Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD
Lines: 118

In article <1732@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:

>>>>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.

I should point out that christian morals ARE based on pricisely this
principle, on sound biblical authority.  However, as for the defintion...

>  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.

But but but there's no definition in there at all!  And let's take the red
shirt example to a more serious form of interference: should you drink in
front of an alchoholic?  Should you eat a slice of cake in front of someone
on a diet?  It's unclear to me whether or not Rich's system says yea or nay.

>>>>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.

>>>know what my best interests are?"  Just thought I'd make it clear.
>>>You don't.

Oh really.  How do you know this?

>> (I assume you mean I don't know what your best interests are, not I don't
>> make it clear.)

Well, in many cases this is quite obviously not true.  People typically
operate under some delusions about their state of well-being.  Were there no
such delusions, I could agree whole-heartedly with Rich's system.  But in
fact there are.  To take an extreme case, consider a man, a farmer, who
suffers a massive heart attack.  Awakening in the hospital, he struggles to
leave.  Can it really be argued that he is competent to judge his condition?
Are not the doctors justified in restraining him from killing himself as he
acts out the delusion that he is well?  Certainly, this example is extreme.
The problem I see is that there is no clear-cut dividing line; situations
run from this all the way down to where things are better let to go wrong,
to where the good or badness of the situation is quite unclear.

>> 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.

Because they emotionally are not competent to decide.

>> 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.  :-)

So what?  All you've shown is that power can be abused.  So what?

>> 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?  

Rich has made quite clear that his viewpoint on the world is quite different
from the average.  So is mine.  I also get the strong impression that he
believes that most everyone (including me) is massively deluded about the
truth of the world.  Everyone but him.  Well, maybe this is true.  But it
seems to me that this is a bit proud.  I am well aware of the fact that I
quite often do not know what is best for me.  In many cases in am not aware,
but others are.  Rich seems to be taking a fairly extreme position on what
constitutes interference.  As I see it, his principle would claim that it is
immoral for a university to require certain courses, for a athletic coach to
demand cooperation of his players, and a host of other minor interferences.
It seems to me that, accepting Rich's principle (and I do think it is
valid to some extent), the whole question of what consitutes interference
is quite murky.  And I think the principle itself is questionable in the
light of some situations where the person being "interfered with" is clearly
not capable of deciding what his best interests are.


Charley Wingate


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com