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!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxt!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference Message-ID: <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sat, 17-Aug-85 08:02:09 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1525 Posted: Sat Aug 17 08:02:09 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:06:50 EDT References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 11 > 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. [ADAMS] Agreed. That's why there are courts and judges, because NO system can define everything and every situation. (Is that a fallout of Godel? :-) -- "Wait a minute. '*WE*' decided??? *MY* best interests????" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr