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 Good Samaritan laws cannot straightforwardly be justified by appeal to the harm principle.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Omissions can constitute harm when a person's pre-existing vulnerability is causally deepened by another's inaction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Joel Feinberg's 'harm as setback to interests' includes worsening a victim's condition relative to their baseline, encompassing preventable death.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If failing to rescue deepens harm by foreclosing recovery, the harm principle's counterfactual framing is satisfied without requiring the rescuer to be the original cause.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill himself treats liberty-limiting obligations as legitimate when the cost to the agent is negligible and the benefit to another is substantial, as in his bridge example.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The harm principle was never restricted by Mill to acts of commission; he explicitly acknowledges compellable positive duties in cases of obvious public benefit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Good Samaritan obligations, when minimally burdensome, fall within the Millian category of enforceable social duties rather than constituting a separate justificatory problem.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The harm principle justifies restricting liberty only to prevent harm to others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.It is not clear that failing to rescue a drowning child harms the child in the counterfactual sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the failure to rescue does not constitute harm, the harm principle provides no direct justification for compelling rescue.
      ?

      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.