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 permits any action that does not harm others, and voluntary self-subjugation primarily affects only the consenting party.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Voluntary agreements can be impaired by desperation, cognitive limits, and unequal bargaining power that undermine genuine consent.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Self-harm imposes indirect costs: medical treatment burden, lost productive capacity, and psychological effects on dependents and communities.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Mill's principle permits legal limits on consent-waiving contracts (slavery, organ sales); self-subjugation may warrant similar limits.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
The harm principle's purpose is protecting individual liberty from state coercion, not preventing all self-inflicted harms.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Consensual self-subjugation involves only the agent's own interests, creating no externalities that justify legal restriction.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Paternalistic prohibition of voluntary choices undermines personal autonomy and treats adults as incapable of self-governance.
?
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.