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!decvax!bellcore!petrus!magic!nvc!sabre!zeta!epsilon!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy,net.religion Subject: Re: Examples of "Interference" for Your Consideration Message-ID: <2048@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 00:36:23 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2048 Posted: Wed Nov 6 00:36:23 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 8-Nov-85 08:16:50 EST References: <1944@pyuxd.UUCP> <743@mmintl.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 55 Xref: linus net.philosophy:2782 net.religion:7766 > I would like your answers to these questions, with justifications. > Frank Adams But I asked you first. :-) Seriously, I did. I am looking to hear what your responses are (as well as those of others) to the issues and examples presented. That's why I posted the article in the first place. On what basis do YOU distinguish between the examples? I am most curious. I will gladly provide my answers once I have seen a few responses to the examples presented, and how people distinguish between them. Or do you feel you have no basis for distinguishing rationally between them? I obviously think you do, and I obviously think you know this, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the questions. I will re-include the specific examples for those who might have liked to have seen them in the aforementioned followup article. | 1. Someone takes an object from you that you have purchased through | normal economic channels against your will and/or without | your knowledge. | | 2. Someone physically harms you or a loved one in some way, resulting | in physical injury, permanent or otherwise, against the will | of the person injured. | | 3. Someone deliberately prevents you from engaging in an action of | your choice that affects only you (and/or other consenting persons). | | 4. A person or persons engage in deliberate psychological manipulation to | get you to hold certain beliefs (for profit or otherwise) that | are counter to your current understanding and known facts. | | 5. Someone does something that does not do you any harm as in any of the | above examples, but which you have a distaste or dislike for, for | whatever reason. | | 6. A large number of cars in the rightmost lane of a superhighway passing | by at the point of entrance at an "on-ramp" prevent you from getting | on the highway. | | 7. A group of people engage freely in a practice that you feel is "immoral", | though it doesn't fall into the aforementioned categories as | used as criteria for #5, and what's more they engage in it without | shame, openly, even in public. | | 8. Someone walks by you with a red shirt on. | | Obviously some of these examples are redundant. But it would make an | interesting exercise to delineate the interfering actions (that would be | restricted in a minimal non-interference-based morality) from the | non-interfering actions (that wouldn't). I'm especially interested in | hearing how certain people in particular might justify calling certain | actions "interfering", or otherwise worthy of restriction. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr