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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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