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
    Mill himself ties harm prevention to causal proximity, ma... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→HP2 will justify more intervention than HP1.

    Mill himself ties harm prevention to causal proximity, making HP2's broader reach functionally equivalent to HP1 in most concrete cases.

    ?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.Mill consistently emphasizes direct, traceable causal chains when justifying harm prevention in On Liberty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.HP2's broader scope becomes practically constrained by evidentiary demands of proving causal proximity, limiting actual applications.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Most enforceable harm-prevention cases involve near-causal relationships, making theoretical expansion functionally negligible.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill's doctrine permits intervention in remote but probable harms (like dangerous monopolies), contradicting causal proximity constraints.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.HP2 enables regulation of social conditions enabling future harms without direct causation, which HP1 would exclude as too distant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Functional equivalence requires empirical evidence that regulators actually apply both standards identically—theoretical analysis alone insufficient.
      ?

      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

    Functional equivalence requires empirical evidence that regulators actually appl...HP2 enables regulation of social conditions enabling future harms without direct...HP2 will justify more intervention than HP1.HP2's broader scope becomes practically constrained by evidentiary demands of pr...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mill consistently emphasizes direct, traceable causal chains when justifying har...Mill's doctrine permits intervention in remote but probable harms (like dangerou...Most enforceable harm-prevention cases involve near-causal relationships, making...

    Details

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