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: <1543@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Sun, 18-Aug-85 18:23:07 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxd.1543 Posted: Sun Aug 18 18:23:07 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 07:18:02 EDT References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <549@utastro.UUCP> <1241@umcp-cs.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 21 >>>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. [WINGATE] >>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. [HOULAHAN] > In that case, though, all of the moral system is embedded in the evaluations > one makes to decide which freedom to keep and which to curtail. [WINGATE] You got it! The most freedom availble while still protecting the interests of all people from non-interference is, in fact, the minimal morality of minimal necessary restrictions! (Thank you!) -- Meanwhile, the Germans were engaging in their heavy cream experiments in Finland, where the results kept coming out like Swiss cheese... Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr