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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Mill's harm principle, as historically articulated, cannot adequately distinguish between setback of interests and mere preference-frustration without importing contested value judgments.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.The distinction between setback interests and preference-frustration can track objective welfare impacts (bodily integrity vs. aesthetic displeasure) independent of values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.All moral principles require some normative grounding; this limitation doesn't uniquely undermine Mill's principle relative to competing theories.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Interpretive disagreement reflects application difficulty, not principle failure—similar issues plague rights-based and consequentialist frameworks equally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill never formally defined 'harm' as distinct from preference-frustration, leaving interpreters to supply criteria that reflect their own values.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Distinguishing setback interests from mere preferences requires judgments about which interests deserve protection—judgments Mill's principle alone cannot ground.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Historical applications of harm principle diverge (drug bans, speech restrictions, paternalism), suggesting absent value-neutral criteria for demarcation.
      ?

      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.
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42