D.G. Brown and C.L. Ten have demonstrated that Mill's harm principle underdetermines which interferences are impermissible without appeal to a background theory of interests and autonomy.
?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.
Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.
An idea by philosopher John Stuart Mill stating that the only good reason to restrict someone's freedom is if they're harming others—not to 'protect them from themselves.'
autonomy(Used to ground worker rights to self-governance in the workplace)
The right to freely determine one's own actions
background theory(meta-theoretic foundations)
The foundational theory one must employ in order to articulate or formalize a broader philosophical conception such as the multiverse view
impermissible(deontic logic / possible worlds semantics)
A proposition p is impermissible if and only if p holds in no i-acceptable world
underdetermines(logic and language)
Doesn't fully decide or pin down; leaves open multiple possible interpretations because there isn't enough information visible to choose just one.