andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/25/83)
#N:uokvax:9500003:000:3803 uokvax!andree Dec 22 18:53:00 1983 /***** uokvax:net.politics / umcp-cs!flink / 8:03 pm Dec 19, 1983 */ 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 /* ---------- */ Paul - Picked the whole thing up and moved it to net.philosophy, were it seemed to be more at home. Hopefully, I can get a more complete explanation about your ethical views (as promised above). I don't agree that our veiws on non-interference are that far apart; we both agree that the less interference, the better. I agree that you can't have complete non-interefernce. I indicated that my system of ethics had holes in it; most of them are due to just that problem. The thing is, I don't think you can do much better than an incomplete ethical system (more below). The major difference between us seems to be summed up in one line of yours `... I approve of force to prevent people from doing nasty things to ... themselves.' I don't approve of such, mainly because I don't pretend to know when something is nasty for anybody but me. For example, I know of people who are, but for a minor technical point, slaves. Doesn't bother them in the slightest. They LIKE it; they like being told what to do with most of their waking time; they like not having to worry about meals, clothes, etc. I think they are in an nasty situation, but they don't seem to mind, so I leave them alone. Second example: should I decide that my life is complete, and that now would be the appropriate time for it to end, who are YOU to tell me I can't do this? You have made living an obligation; it isn't, living is a right. Now, back to my original challenge (assuming others on net.philosophy might be interested): I am trying to find an ethical system that is: reasonable, in that it supports the idea of minimal interference among people; consistent, in that two people who follow it will come to the same conclusion at all times, no matter which side of the situation they are on; and complete, in that it handles every situation. I have a feeling that it can't be done. Anyone care to try? <mike