rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/23/85)
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. -- "iY AHORA, INFORMACION INTERESANTE ACERCA DE... LA LLAMA!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
franka@mmintl.UUCP (Frank Adams) (10/29/85)
[Not food] I would like your answers to these questions, with justifications. Frank Adams ihpn4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka Multimate International 52 Oakland Ave North E. Hartford, CT 06108
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/06/85)
> 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
torek@umich.UUCP (Paul V. Torek ) (11/06/85)
In article <2048@pyuxd.UUCP> rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) writes: >... On what basis do YOU distinguish between the examples? This was directed to Frank Adams, but just in case Rich also wants my answer: let's have a look at those examples... > >| 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. "Otherwise worthy of restriction" is what I shall be interested in, since, like Frank Adams, I don't think the concept of "interfering" vs. "non- interfering" can be used to settle these questions. Most of the examples are underdescribed. 3 and 8 are exceptions. 3 ought to be illegal (which is not however to say that it is necessarily immoral). 8 ought not to be illegal. 7 ought to be illegal or not depending on the practice; if the practice is torturing chimps for fun, I think it ought to be. 1 ought to be illegal provided that "normal economic channels" are roughly what they ought to be (e.g., slavery for blacks is not part of "normal economic channels"). 6 is a real toughie. 5 ought to be legal in most cases and 2 illegal in most cases. 4 ought to be legal for the most part when you voluntarily put yourself in earshot of the manipulative message, e.g. when you watch ads on TV. Exceptions here for ads that encourage wrongful violence, e.g. a (hypothetical, I hope) Nazi ad. Exception to the general illegality of 2: you, and few or no others innocents, are in the target zone with a very important enemy troop concentration that must be stopped if the deaths of many more innocents are to be averted. And how am I coming up with these answers? By considering the overall effects these actions 1-8 have on people and other sentient beings, and again by considering the effects of making the actions illegal. Some- times, indeed often, an action harms some people and helps others. So, next logical question: how to make these interpersonal comparisons? First, I think they must be made on the basis of a fair standard which is publically defensible and everyone could agree on. But some claim to doubt whether it makes any sense to compare one person's gain or loss of well- being to another person's. Here I think the obvious answer is that it does; we all make such comparisons and seem to do it in a rational manner. For example when one has to choose between helping two friends on a certain occasion when one can't help both, one doesn't just consider which friend is closer; one also considers "how much" the help one could give to each friend increases his well-being. If by helping one you spare him a long, painful illness, while helping the other is merely convenient for him, you'll help the first. So, to recap: in deciding whether something should be restricted, one asks oneself, would a random person (not just me, because if my only criterion is what happens to me then my standard is unfair and not publically defensible) have better expected well-being in a society which restricted the activity, or one which allowed it? --Paul V Torek torek@umich