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's harm principle is not a mere balancing considerati... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Liberal claims that harmless immorality should not be regulated are not inconsistent with weak moralism

    Mill's harm principle is not a mere balancing consideration but a side-constraint that categorically excludes paternalistic or moralistic justifications for coercion.

    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mill explicitly distinguishes harm to others from self-regarding conduct, treating only the former as legitimate coercion grounds.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating the harm principle as a side-constraint protects individual liberty from majoritarian moral preferences and paternalistic overreach.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If harm were merely one balancing factor, governments could justify almost any restriction by claiming sufficient moral or welfare benefits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill himself invokes considerations beyond harm (education, development of individuality), suggesting his principle permits non-harm justifications.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Defining 'harm' precisely enough to function as an absolute constraint proves philosophically intractable, undermining its categorical force.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Public health emergencies, environmental catastrophes, and national security plausibly justify coercion despite lacking direct individual harms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Rights & Liberty1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Defining 'harm' precisely enough to function as an absolute constraint proves ph...If harm were merely one balancing factor, governments could justify almost any r...Liberal claims that harmless immorality should not be regulated are not inconsis...Mill explicitly distinguishes harm to others from self-regarding conduct, treati...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mill himself invokes considerations beyond harm (education, development of indiv...Public health emergencies, environmental catastrophes, and national security pla...Treating the harm principle as a side-constraint protects individual liberty fro...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit