franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (11/06/85)
[Not food] I raised some questions a while ago on the principle of non-interference, which I never saw answers to. This may be because my posting never got out, or because the answers never got here; our news system has been unusually flakey of late, and was shut off for a while. My main question concerns the meaning of interference. I proposed one definition: one interferes with someone when one causes that person to have an experience which they do not want to have. This was rejected by those who espouse the principle. It has been hinted that the meaning is essentially the same as harm. This doesn't seem right to me; I think it is certainly possible to interfere with people in ways that do not harm them. Another possible definition is that interfering is preventing someone from exercizing a right. Unfortunately, that puts us right back on square one; what rights do people have, and how do we decide this? So my question is, what is the definition of interference? How does one decide which actions are interference and which are not? My second question is directly more specifically at Rich Rosen, and assumes that the answer to the first question has something to do with harm to the person being interfered with. You have long asserted that one cannot know what is in another person's interests, what is good for them. How then can you base your morality on not doing harm to others? Good and harm are two sides of the same coin; if you know one, you know the other. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108