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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Expanding the harm principle to a broader harm-prevention rationale risks licensing paternalistic and welfarist interventions Mill explicitly sought to rule out.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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