Joel Feinberg's harm principle permits liberty restrictions when cumulative harms to identifiable third parties (donors' offspring) reach a threshold of serious preventable injury.

?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

Cumulative harms(as the type of harm that can trigger restrictions): Damage or injury that builds up over time from multiple small incidents rather than one big event.
Identifiable third parties(as the people who must be harmed for restrictions to apply): Specific people who can be named or recognized (as opposed to unknown or theoretical people) who would be affected by someone else's actions.
Joel Feinberg(The statement references his specific work on understanding duties): A 20th-century American philosopher who wrote extensively about rights, duties, and how moral rules work logically.
Liberty restrictions(as actions justified by the harm principle): Laws or rules that limit what people are allowed to do or choices they can make.
Preventable injury(as the type of harm the principle addresses): Harm or damage that could realistically be stopped or avoided before it happens.
harm principle(Associated with Mill; its necessity as a basis for liberty restrictions is questioned): The principle that restrictions on individual liberty are justified only when necessary to prevent harm to others
threshold(Threshold model of collective action in networks): A numeric value associated with each player representing the minimum number of revolting participants required for that player to revolt.

2 topics