Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site umich.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!mb2c!umich!torek From: torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: The Principle of Non-interference Message-ID: <232@umich.UUCP> Date: Tue, 17-Sep-85 02:30:37 EDT Article-I.D.: umich.232 Posted: Tue Sep 17 02:30:37 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 18-Sep-85 03:55:15 EDT References: <588@mmintl.UUCP> <1525@pyuxd.UUCP> <617@mmintl.UUCP> <1624@pyuxd.UUCP> <637@mmintl.UUCP> <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> Reply-To: torek@eecs.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) Organization: University of Michigan, EECS Dept., Ann Arbor, MI Lines: 24 Summary: Frank Adams is right In article <1664@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >> ... This [principle, by itself] has some content, but not >> very much. It doesn't let you wear a red shirt in public, because someone >> may not like to see it. It doesn't even let you appear in public. [ADAMS] > >Is seeing something you don't like an act of interference? Do you have the >right to destroy anything that "offends" your sensibilities? Of course not. >Not liking something isn't an act of interference against you. ... Frank Adams is right. As a first attempt to explain why, contrast an act that intuitively seems like unfair interference: inflicting severe pain. In the red shirt example, we have photons from my shirt entering your eyes and registering a sensation in your mind that you (for some reason) dislike. In the infliction of pain example, though, the physical description of what's going on might be almost the same -- only this time I'm shining a bright light into your eyes (almost, but not quite, bright enough to cause permanent vision impairment)! Presumably Rich will say that the very bright light in the eyes is inter- ference, but the red shirt isn't. But ON WHAT OBJECTIVIE BASIS can this distinction be drawn? The principle of non-interference cannot supply the criteria. Some other criteria must be at work. --The return of the iconoclast Paul V Torek