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