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 rejects the regulation of mere offense. — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Restricting individual liberty is justified only when an action harms others by injuring or setting back their important interests.

    Mill rejects the regulation of mere offense.

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Related

    Mere offense is comparatively minor and ephemeral and does not constitute harm i...Mill's harm principle holds that harm consists in injuring or setting back impor...Restricting individual liberty is justified only when an action harms others by ...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Justice & Punishment
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    The harm principle is the one justification Mill recognizes for restricting libe...

    Similar

    An appeal to offense as grounds for regulation contradicts Mill's blan...87%Mill's own position on offense regulation is not fully consistent.81%Mill holds a blanket prohibition on regulating conduct merely because ...80%Some forms of offense regulation are permissible within a Millian fram...80%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    First, recall that Mill distinguishes between harm and mere offense. Not every unwelcome consequence for others counts as a harm. Offenses tend to be comparatively minor and ephemeral. To constitute a harm, an action must be injurious or set back important interests of particular people, interests in which they have rights (I 12; III 1; IV 3, 10, 12; V 5). Whereas Mill appears to reject the regulation of mere offense, the harm principle appears to be the one justification he recognizes for restr

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective