Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Competitive economic losses are not harms in the relevant... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Competitive economic losses are not harms in the relevant sense because they are consensual.

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The harm principle targets only non-consensual harms (volenti principle).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.In a market economy that ensures fair terms of cooperation, economic losses are freely risked and therefore consensual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Structural coercion under conditions of economic necessity renders 'consent' to market terms formally voluntary but substantively constrained.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill himself distinguishes liberty from mere absence of direct interference, requiring conditions that enable genuine autonomous choice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Where exit options are practically unavailable, competitive losses imposed by dominant market actors cannot be classified as mutually consented risks.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Nozick's own framework concedes that the baseline for determining harm requires comparison to a morally appropriate counterfactual, not merely prior agreement.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If competitive practices worsen another's position relative to what they would have been absent the actor's conduct, the consensual framing obscures a genuine setback to interests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Feinberg's account of harm as wrongful setback to interests is independent of consent, since consent to competition does not entail consent to every method employed within it.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Social Contract1 linked

    Related

    Feinberg's account of harm as wrongful setback to interests is independent of co...If competitive practices worsen another's position relative to what they would h...In a market economy that ensures fair terms of cooperation, economic losses are ...Mill himself distinguishes liberty from mere absence of direct interference, req...
    +4 moreShow less
    Nozick's own framework concedes that the baseline for determining harm requires ...Structural coercion under conditions of economic necessity renders 'consent' to ...The harm principle targets only non-consensual harms (volenti principle).Where exit options are practically unavailable, competitive losses imposed by do...

    Similar

    Competitive economic losses are not harms in the relevant sense becaus...90%In a market economy that ensures fair terms of cooperation, economic l...78%Mill's harm principle is fundamentally concerned with non-consensual h...73%The failure to provide benefits does not always constitute harm.72%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    If Mill accepts weak, rather than strong, sufficiency, then he might claim that though there is a reason to regulate harmful economic competition the costs of interfering with free markets are too great. However, this seems not be Mill’s preferred response. His official position seems to be that the harm principle should not be applied to such economic harms (IV 4). It is hard to see why Mill embraces this sort of free-trade exception. A different and better reply would not suspend the operation
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit