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: <691@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Wed, 31-Dec-69 18:59:59 EDT Article-I.D.: mmintl.691 Posted: Wed Dec 31 18:59:59 1969 Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 06:36:48 EDT References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP> <1624@pyuxd.UUCP> <637@mmintl.UUCP> <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> <653@mmintl.UUCP> <1732@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 79 Summary: [Not food] In article <1732@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >>>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. :-) No, in this case the person is *really* *not* better off, so it is not justified. I never said there are no hard decisions (not that *this* one is hard). >>>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". Yes, but would we better off with no speed limits? I don't think so. I think we would be significantly worse off. The additional traffic deaths would more than outweigh the kind of petty graft you are talking about. >> 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? There are many people who have been forcibly restrained from committing suicide, who are today very grateful for that "interference". >> 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. Yes. Utilitaritarianism says that the morally correct action in any situation is that which maximizing the common good, defined as the total good of everyone. As such, it (theoretically) determines the correct action in any situation. (Note that your own desires are not to be excluded in this calculation.) Lots of people reject this. (Left undefined in the above is the question of what constitutes the "good" for any individual. The original proposal was the difference between the amount of pleasure and pain. This is widely rejected, but there is no consensus on what to replace it with.) 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