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: <1543@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 18:23:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1543
Posted: Sun Aug 18 18:23:07 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:18:02 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <549@utastro.UUCP> <1241@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 21

>>>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. [WINGATE]

>>As I understand it, "interference" in recent discussions means curtailing
>>another's freedoms. Since no man is an island, the principle of 
>>non-interference is presented as one of minimizing the curtailment of
>>another's freedoms. [HOULAHAN]

> In that case, though, all of the moral system is embedded in the evaluations
> one makes to decide which freedom to keep and which to curtail. [WINGATE]

You got it!  The most freedom availble while still protecting the interests
of all people from non-interference is, in fact, the minimal morality of
minimal necessary restrictions!  (Thank you!)
-- 
Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in
Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese...
				Rich Rosen 	ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr