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
    Expanding the harm principle to a broader harm-prevention... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Mill's harm principle must rely on the broader harm-prevention rationale rather than the narrower anti-harming rationale

    Expanding the harm principle to a broader harm-prevention rationale risks licensing paternalistic and welfarist interventions Mill explicitly sought to rule out.

    ?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.Mill's harm principle draws a bright line between self-regarding and other-regarding conduct to protect individual liberty against majoritarian preferences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Broader harm-prevention rationales lack principled limits, allowing intervention whenever authorities predict reduced welfare outcomes from personal choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Once harm expands beyond direct injury to include opportunity costs and forgone benefits, nearly any behavior becomes subject to paternalistic control.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill's original harm principle itself already contains ambiguities about indirect harms and social consequences that require interpretation beyond his framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some paternalistic interventions (mandatory seatbelts, vaccine requirements) enjoy broad consensus because they prevent genuine harms Mill would recognize.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Rejecting all harm-prevention reasoning beyond Mill's narrow definition may itself enable serious harms that no coherent liberty theory should permit.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    1 topic

    Rights & Liberty1 linked

    Related

    Broader harm-prevention rationales lack principled limits, allowing intervention...Mill's harm principle draws a bright line between self-regarding and other-regar...Mill's harm principle must rely on the broader harm-prevention rationale rather ...Mill's original harm principle itself already contains ambiguities about indirec...
    +3 moreShow less
    Once harm expands beyond direct injury to include opportunity costs and forgone ...Rejecting all harm-prevention reasoning beyond Mill's narrow definition may itse...Some paternalistic interventions (mandatory seatbelts, vaccine requirements) enj...

    Details

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