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's harm principle functions as a side-constraint on state action, not a positive endorsement of any particular conception of the good life.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mill's definition of 'harm' inevitably incorporates contested values about human interests and social welfare.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Preventing certain harms implicitly endorses competing conceptions of the good (e.g., autonomy, dignity, wellbeing).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The harm principle cannot remain truly neutral; applying it requires substantive judgments about flourishing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill explicitly restricts state intervention to preventing harm to others, not promoting virtue or flourishing.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The principle operates negatively (what state cannot do) rather than prescriptively (what citizens should pursue).
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's framework preserves individual liberty precisely by refusing to enforce contested ideals of the good life.
      ?

      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.