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: <689@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.689
Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 06:36:15 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP> <1624@pyuxd.UUCP> <637@mmintl.UUCP> <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> <232@umich.UUCP> <1726@pyuxd.UUCP>
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 74

[Not food.]

In article <1726@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes:
>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?

Do you wish to exclude mental pain from the meaning of harm?  I know it's
hard to measure, but physical pain is hard to measure, too.

>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.

The assumption is that you are wearing the shirt *in public*, e.g., on a
busy thoroughfare traversed by many people.  Also, I can't "not look" before
seeing it the first time -- and seeing it once may be bad enough.

Please define what you mean by "interference".  If the definition depends on
the idea of "harm", please tell us what that means, as well.

>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.  

Quite.

>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.

Why do you think you can compare the amount of interference with one person
with the amount of interference with another?  I ask this not because I
think you can't, but because you reject the same kind of comparison in
other contexts.  "How do you know what is in my interests?  You don't."
(This quote may not be word for word, but I don't think it misrepresents
your viewpoint.)  How are the two cases different?

>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?

I don't really think you should be prevented from wearing a red shirt.  I
think there are such things as rights, and that you have a right to wear a
red shirt.  I just think you have things backwards -- you want to define
morality in terms of rights, while I claim that rights are defined in terms
of morality.

>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".

I see no real difference between the two cases, except that the chance that
someone actually *would* be harmed is higher in your example, *because of
social attitudes*.

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