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
    It is difficult to determine how significantly Feinberg's... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    It is difficult to determine how significantly Feinberg's balancing approach departs from Mill's liberal principles.

    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.Mill's own position on offense regulation is not fully consistent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.An inconsistent original position makes it hard to measure the extent of any modification to that position.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg explicitly introduces a multi-factor 'offense calculus' with no textual basis in Mill's harm principle writings.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's principle operates as a near-absolute side-constraint, while Feinberg's balancing model is fundamentally consequentialist in structure.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A departure in logical form—from side-constraint to balancing test—constitutes a significant departure regardless of shared liberal vocabulary.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill consistently refused to extend coercive regulation to mere offense, a refusal Feinberg explicitly overrides in 'Offense to Others' (1985).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The introduction of a new category of legally cognizable harm—offense—marks a principled boundary crossing, not a minor refinement of Mill's framework.
      ?

      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

    3 topics

    Truth & Knowledge1 linkedConsequentialism1 linkedSkepticism1 linked

    Related

    A departure in logical form—from side-constraint to balancing test—constitutes a...An inconsistent original position makes it hard to measure the extent of any mod...Feinberg explicitly introduces a multi-factor 'offense calculus' with no textual...Mill consistently refused to extend coercive regulation to mere offense, a refus...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mill's own position on offense regulation is not fully consistent.Mill's principle operates as a near-absolute side-constraint, while Feinberg's b...

    Similar

    The contrast between conservatism and liberalism is not absolute, but ...75%Mill's liberal principles do not apply to individuals who lack suitabl...75%Spencer's liberal utilitarianism differs fundamentally from Mill's uti...74%Herbert Spencer deserves greater attention in contemporary liberal uti...74%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    The details of Feinberg’s balancing test are complex and potentially controversial. But most liberal societies do in fact allow for some nuisance regulation. If one is going to consider modifying Mill’s categorical approach so as to allow the prevention of profound nuisance, then one must employ some such balancing test and allow restriction only when the offense is hard to avoid, the expressive interests of the offenders are modest, and offenders have alternative avenues of expression. Since Mi
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    The introduction of a new category of legally cognizable harm—offense—marks a pr...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit