Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that John Stuart Mill's harm principle holds that an individual's sovereignty over their own body and mind is absolute against paternalistic interference.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
People often lack capacity for rational decision-making due to addiction, cognitive bias, depression, or inadequate information.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Absolute sovereignty ignores how individual choices create externalities affecting public health systems, families, and social costs.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mill's harm principle itself permits paternalism when choices prevent future autonomy—but this exception undermines the 'absolute' claim.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Individuals possess unique knowledge of their own interests that external authorities cannot access or evaluate as reliably.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Paternalistic restrictions set dangerous precedents, enabling government to justify expanding control over ever more personal decisions.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Respecting autonomy even for bad choices affirms human dignity better than substituting others' judgment for one's own.
?
How convincing is this?
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.