If liberalism entails the harm principle as a side-constraint, then weak moralism's permission to regulate harmless wrongdoing 'on balance' directly contradicts the liberal position.

?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 perspective

Reason against

Based on where you are in your exploration

Liberalism(as the main subject being discussed): A political and philosophical tradition that emphasizes individual rights, democratic governance, and the idea that government should remain neutral on questions about what makes life meaningful or good.
On balance(as a term describing how weak moralism makes decisions): After weighing all the pros and cons together; when you consider everything as a whole rather than following a strict rule.
Side-constraint(as a philosophical concept about limits on decision-making): A principle or rule that cannot be violated or overridden, even if breaking it would produce better overall results; it acts like a boundary that limits what methods are acceptable.
The Harm Principle(core concept in liberal political philosophy): An idea that the only good reason to limit someone's freedom is to prevent harm to others—not to protect people from harming themselves or from doing things society disapproves of.
harmless wrongdoing(Used to distinguish the category of wrongdoing from the category of harmful conduct in debates over legal moralism): Conduct that is morally wrong but does not result in harm to any party
weak moralism(Legal philosophy; compatible with liberal constraints on regulating harmless conduct): The view that there are at least some cases of harmless wrongdoing where legal regulation is not only pro tanto justified but also on-balance justified

2 topics