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: <1808@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 29-Sep-85 02:19:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1808
Posted: Sun Sep 29 02:19:31 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 01:14:58 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 50

>>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.

First, speed limit laws were but one example of the phenomenon I describe,
which is manifested throughout our so-called law enforcement system.  Its goal
is less law enforcement than it is its own self-perpetuation.  Second, this
fact alone means that the goals have been subverted.

>>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".

And many more who are stuck in prisons/hospitals/etc. for not towing the line
of social "norms".  The whole issue boils down to "do you draw the line on
the far side of restriction (to be "protective") or on the near side (to
allow freedom)?

>>> 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.

Sure, lots of people are not interested in good or benefits to people
in general.  Actually, that is not the definition of utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism merely states that the goal for a choice should rest in its
usefulness, its "utility".  Again, can any morality or societal code afford
to be non-utilitarian?
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com