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
    Liberal claims that harmless immorality should not be reg... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Liberal claims that harmless immorality should not be regulated are not inconsistent with weak moralism

    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.Weak moralism only holds that some harmless wrongdoing may be legally regulated on balance
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Liberal claims do not rule out the possibility that some harmless immorality is regulable on balance
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's liberal position holds that legal moralism is an independently illegitimate liberty-limiting principle, not merely one that loses in balancing tests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Weak moralism's claim that harmless immorality 'may be regulated on balance' presupposes that moral wrongdoing carries positive justificatory weight, which Feinbergian liberals categorically deny.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore the two positions are not merely in tension but rest on mutually exclusive accounts of which considerations count as legitimate grounds for coercion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's harm principle is not a mere balancing consideration but a side-constraint that categorically excludes paternalistic or moralistic justifications for coercion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If liberalism entails the harm principle as a side-constraint, then weak moralism's permission to regulate harmless wrongdoing 'on balance' directly contradicts the liberal position.
      ?

      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

    Related

    Feinberg's liberal position holds that legal moralism is an independently illegi...If liberalism entails the harm principle as a side-constraint, then weak moralis...Liberal claims do not rule out the possibility that some harmless immorality is ...Mill's harm principle is not a mere balancing consideration but a side-constrain...
    +3 moreShow less
    Therefore the two positions are not merely in tension but rest on mutually exclu...Weak moralism only holds that some harmless wrongdoing may be legally regulated ...Weak moralism's claim that harmless immorality 'may be regulated on balance' pre...

    Similar

    Liberal claims do not rule out the possibility that some harmless immo...84%Weak moralism only holds that some harmless wrongdoing may be legally ...84%Weak moralism must be endorsed if there are cases of harmless wrongdoi...82%The legal moralist need not regulate all harmless wrongdoing80%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    As we’ve just seen, liberal claims that harmless immorality should not be regulated are inconsistent with strong moralism, but not with weak moralism. It’s clear that Mill rejects strong moralism. What is less clear is whether he also rejects weak moralism. We must endorse weak moralism if we think that there are cases of harmless wrongdoing where legal regulation is not only pro tanto justified but also on-balance justified. Any list is potentially controversial, but many people would think tha
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit