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
    Joel Feinberg's harm principle taxonomy shows that 'preve... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→HP2 will justify more intervention than HP1.

    Joel Feinberg's harm principle taxonomy shows that 'preventing harm' and 'harm caused by the target' converge when harm is defined as wrongful setback to interests.

    ?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.Wrongful setback definitions clarify when prevention is justified by establishing that only interests genuinely violated warrant intervention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Convergence occurs because both concepts require causation plus wrongfulness—preventing harm means stopping wrongful setbacks before they occur.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.This taxonomy avoids paternalism by distinguishing harmful interference (wrongful) from beneficial interference, making the principle coherent.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The 'wrongful setback' definition is circular: it defines harm using 'wrongful,' but wrongfulness itself often depends on what counts as harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Convergence is overstated—preventing potential harm and responding to actual harm involve different epistemic and causal conditions that don't align neatly.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Cultural disagreements about what interests deserve protection show 'wrongful setback' cannot ground a universal harm principle as claimed.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Rights & Liberty1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Convergence is overstated—preventing potential harm and responding to actual har...Convergence occurs because both concepts require causation plus wrongfulness—pre...Cultural disagreements about what interests deserve protection show 'wrongful se...HP2 will justify more intervention than HP1.
    +3 moreShow less
    The 'wrongful setback' definition is circular: it defines harm using 'wrongful,'...This taxonomy avoids paternalism by distinguishing harmful interference (wrongfu...Wrongful setback definitions clarify when prevention is justified by establishin...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit