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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    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