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