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
    If the failure to rescue does not constitute harm, the ha... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

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

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

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Related

    Good Samaritan laws cannot straightforwardly be justified by appeal to the harm ...It is not clear that failing to rescue a drowning child harms the child in the c...The harm principle justifies restricting liberty only to prevent harm to others.

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Justice & Punishment
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    Whether a failure to rescue constitutes harm depends on the chosen bas...85%Good Samaritan laws cannot straightforwardly be justified by appeal to...77%The harm principle is complex and does not operate as an absolute rule77%The harm principle is not intended to serve as a necessary condition o...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    In discussing enforceable duties to give evidence or Samaritan aid, Mill claims that the failure to confer benefits constitutes harm. But it is not in general true that the failure to provide benefits always counts as a harm. In many cases it seems not to. You would benefit me by transferring all your savings to my bank account (let us assume); it doesn’t follow that your failure to do so harms me. Why not? Presumably, because we assess harms counterfactually: if x harms me, it makes me signific

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective