Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
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 holds that self-regarding actions affecting only oneself fall outside legitimate coercive interference, even to prevent self-harm.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
No action is purely self-regarding; individuals exist in social webs with dependents and communities bearing indirect harms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Autonomy itself may be compromised by addiction, mental illness, or cognitive biases undermining truly voluntary choice.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
State can legitimately intervene when individuals lack full information or capacity to make informed decisions about serious risks.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Autonomy requires the right to make choices about one's own life, even mistaken ones, without state paternalism.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Individuals possess superior knowledge of their own circumstances, values, and preferences compared to external authorities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Permitting coercive interference in self-regarding conduct creates dangerous precedent for expanding state control.
?
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.