flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/16/83)
I said before, and still maintain, that if my views were more widely spread there would be fewer people running others' lives. Mike (uokvax!andree) doesn't seem to agree: "you may stop person A from running person B's life, but you have just started running A's life." Maybe so, if you interpret "running [someone's] life" very loosely. Just what does count, in your book, as "running someone's life"? I would only count cases where one person controls the vast majority of another's actions; forcing people, say, to avoid killing others would not be *running* their lives (although it is still a use of force). An ethical system should "cover our views on non-interference in others' lives"? I suspect that "our" views are different. Do you advocate total non-interference? Impossible: every action affects the lives of others. Example: pollution -- I drive a car, your air may be fouled; I urinate, it washes eventually into rivers, your water supply may be less sanitary. It's impossible to live or die without *some* impact on others. Of course, you could redefine "interference" to exclude such inevitable impacts, but then you would just be shifting the problem to the (spurious) definition. Since total non-interference is impossible, the question becomes how much is acceptable. Now my view on this is simple, if unpopular: use as much interference as it takes to improve people's welfare as much as possible. (Fuller explanation of my ethical views available if requested in net.philosophy.) That means I approve of force to prevent people from doing nasty things to others (e.g. murder) or themselves (suicide in most cases), or to enable society to enjoy benefits people would not produce voluntarily (e.g. a lot of govt-sponsored scientific research). Comments? --Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink
andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/25/83)
#R:umcp-cs:-444400:uokvax:5000051:000:101 uokvax!andree Dec 22 21:18:00 1983 I have moved the debate between myself and Paul Torek re: rights & ethics to net.philosphy. <mike