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: Re: The Principle of Non-interference Message-ID: <607@mmintl.UUCP> Date: Mon, 19-Aug-85 17:20:41 EDT Article-I.D.: mmintl.607 Posted: Mon Aug 19 17:20:41 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 04:47:09 EDT References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <549@utastro.UUCP> Reply-To: franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT Lines: 23 Summary: Minimizing interference is not well defined [Me] >> 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. Inside a moral system, the principle is equivalent to a certain kind of consistency: it states that if person A has a right to perform action X, then person B has no right to prevent it (in the sense of directly interfering with the action).