Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference
Message-ID: <584@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 21-Aug-85 19:59:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.584
Posted: Wed Aug 21 19:59:54 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 01:28:59 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <549@utastro.UUCP> <607@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 27

> >> 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.
> 
> [Padraig Houlahan]
> >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.
> 
> This really doesn't help.  Which curtailings of freedoms are "less" than
> which other curtailments?  Only within a moral system can this be answered.
> (For an individual, one can ask his or her preference.  This doesn't work
> when more than one person is involved.)  Thus the principle of non-
> interference cannot be the *basis* for a moral system.

No one said that making the decisions would be easy. Fortunately, we have
past experience to refer to. Also society can as a whole decide what
is acceptable. 

If you are unhappy that there isn't someone ready to tell you unambiguously
what's right, and what's wrong, then that's too bad. It does not
invalidate the system though.

Padraig Houlahan.