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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr
From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <1525@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 08:02:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1525
Posted: Sat Aug 17 08:02:09 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:06:50 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 11

> 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. [ADAMS]

Agreed.  That's why there are courts and judges, because NO system can
define everything and every situation.  (Is that a fallout of Godel? :-)
-- 
"Wait a minute.  '*WE*' decided???   *MY* best interests????"
					Rich Rosen    ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr