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: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <588@mmintl.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 12-Aug-85 16:23:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: mmintl.588
Posted: Mon Aug 12 16:23:59 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 14-Aug-85 20:32:52 EDT
Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Lines: 28


There is a problem with the principle of non-interference as a basis
for morality: it is insufficient.  There are a great many cases where
there is an interaction between two or more people, where it is not
clear whether interference has taken place, or who has interfered with
whom.

Consider an example.  Joe likes to go out in his back yard in the nude.
Jim, who lives next door, finds this offensive -- not because he disapproves
of nudity, but because he likes to sit in his backyard, and finds looking
at Jim unappealing.  Is Joe "interfering" with Jim?  If Jim calls the police
to get Joe arrested, is he "interfering"?

The point here is not that such judgements cannot be made; of course they
can.  But the only bases for judgement are our physical nature and our
social context.

Ultimately, it is impossible to "not interfere" with our neighbors.  It
is in the nature of the universe that everything we do affects everyone
else, if only slightly.  And many of the things we do, or want to do,
have very significant effects -- if we eliminate all such, there is very
little left which can be done.

For example, every power plant, of whatever type, generates pollution.
Pollution undeniably interferes with others.  Should we then prohibit
all power plants?  Obviously not; instead we limit how much pollution
they can put out, and are all better off.  But this solution is not
derivable from the non-interference principle.