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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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