A principle permitting interference to prevent irreparable self-harm collapses the self/other distinction that liberal political philosophy depends upon to limit state and interpersonal coercion.

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

1 reason against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Coercion(Kant's political philosophy; used to argue coercion is constitutive of rights, not merely instrumental.): A restriction of the freedom to pursue one's own ends.
Collapses(complexity theory): When separate levels of a hierarchy become indistinguishable or merge into one, suggesting they're actually the same difficulty level.
Interference(as used in ethics and personal freedom): When someone steps in to stop or prevent another person from doing what they want to do.
Irreparable self-harm(as the potential justification for government interference): Damage you do to yourself that cannot be fixed or undone, like a permanent injury or destroying your own future.
Liberal political philosophy(as the philosophical framework being discussed): A tradition of thinking about government that emphasizes protecting individual freedoms and limiting how much power the state (government) can have over people's lives.
Principle (in philosophy)(as used in epistemology): A fundamental rule or statement that serves as the basis for reasoning or making judgments. Think of it as a general guideline that's supposed to be true in many situations.
Self/other distinction(as the foundational principle that limits government power): The basic boundary between yourself and other people—the idea that you are a separate person from everyone else, which is why the government needs a reason to control your behavior but also can't control others without justification.

2 topics