Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Mill's harm principle grounds forward-looking obligations in the very reactive practices—censure, social pressure—that blame makes intelligible.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Reactive blame practices are often epistemically unreliable—crowds stigmatize the innocent and ignore genuine harms lacking social visibility.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Grounding obligations in blame conflates what motivates compliance with what justifies obligations, committing a moral naturalistic fallacy.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mill's harm principle claims universal applicability, but blame norms vary culturally, so they cannot ground universal forward-looking obligations.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Blame practices (censure, social pressure) are evolutionarily prior to abstract moral principles and ground our understanding of accountability.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The harm principle's force derives from how communities actually enforce norms, not from theoretical justifications disconnected from social practice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Forward-looking deterrence works because blame creates reputational costs that rational agents seek to avoid, making it practically grounded.
?
How convincing is this?
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