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.