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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.