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: <1573@pyuxd.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 22-Aug-85 19:35:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1573
Posted: Thu Aug 22 19:35:08 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 25-Aug-85 03:58:13 EDT
References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <549@utastro.UUCP> <607@mmintl.UUCP>
Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week
Lines: 17

>[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. [ADAMS]

Maybe not the entire basis, but the most viable starting point.  The
priorities you mention only have meaning in relation to that starting point.
-- 
Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus.
						Rich Rosen   pyuxd!rlr