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 Feinberg's offense principle demonstrates that serious, profound offense to unwilling witnesses constitutes a harm sufficient to justify legal prohibition.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Offense is subjective and varies by person; legal standards based on offense risk suppressing unpopular but socially valuable speech.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Psychological discomfort differs fundamentally from tangible harm; expanding harm to include offense dangerously broadens state power.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Citizens in pluralistic societies must tolerate exposure to offensive views; shielding people from offense undermines democratic deliberation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Unwilling exposure to deeply offensive content causes genuine psychological distress comparable to other recognized harms like noise pollution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Liberal societies already restrict speech causing serious harm; offense to captive audiences deserves equal consideration as competing interests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.People have a right to use public spaces without forced confrontation to content violating their core values and dignity.
      ?

      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.