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
    HP1 (harm causation principle) is narrower than HP2 (harm... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    HP1 (harm causation principle) is narrower than HP2 (harm prevention principle) because HP1 is a proper part of HP2.

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Every case of preventing one person from harming another is a case of harm prevention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Not every case of harm prevention is a case of preventing one person from harming another.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.HP1 justifies intervention only when the target herself would be the cause of harm to others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.HP1 and HP2 are not species of a common genus but distinct normative principles with different justificatory structures.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.A proper subset relation requires shared criteria of application, but HP1 invokes agency and causation while HP2 invokes outcomes alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Because HP1's justificatory basis includes agentive responsibility absent from HP2, HP1 cannot be a proper part of HP2 without equivocation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Joel Feinberg's taxonomy in 'Harm to Others' treats harm-doing and harm-allowing as generating categorically different liberty-limiting principles, not nested ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If HP1 were a proper part of HP2, Mill's distinction between active interference and failure to rescue would collapse into a single justificatory standard.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's own asymmetric treatment of positive and negative duties in Utilitarianism and On Liberty resists the subsumption of HP1 under HP2 as a subset relation.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism2 linked

    Related

    A proper subset relation requires shared criteria of application, but HP1 invoke...Because HP1's justificatory basis includes agentive responsibility absent from H...Every case of preventing one person from harming another is a case of harm preve...HP1 and HP2 are not species of a common genus but distinct normative principles ...
    +6 moreShow less
    HP1 justifies intervention only when the target herself would be the cause of ha...HP2 justifies intervention to prevent harm to others whether caused by the targe...If HP1 were a proper part of HP2, Mill's distinction between active interference...Joel Feinberg's taxonomy in 'Harm to Others' treats harm-doing and harm-allowing...Mill's own asymmetric treatment of positive and negative duties in Utilitarianis...Not every case of harm prevention is a case of preventing one person from harmin...

    Similar

    Mill understands the harm principle in terms of harm prevention (HP2) ...91%Mill's harm principle must rely on the broader harm-prevention rationa...88%Mill's statement of the harm principle mentions both preventing one fr...85%There are two distinct versions of the harm principle that must be dis...85%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    Because every case of preventing one person from harming another is a case of harm prevention, but not vice versa, HP1 is narrower than HP2. Indeed, HP1 is a proper part of HP2. Whereas HP1 justifies intervention only when the target herself would be the cause of harm to others, HP2 would justify intervention to prevent harm to others, whether that harm would be caused by the target or in some other way. Clearly, HP2 will justify more intervention than HP1. As we have seen, it is hard to justify
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit