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
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Mill's harm principle requires that harm be direct and assignable to specific victims, not speculative or aggregated social harm.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Environmental degradation and systemic injustice cause real harm without identifiable individual victims—excluding them abandons vulnerable groups.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's own examples (pollution, unsafe bridges) involve distributed or potential harms that blur the direct/indirect distinction this reading assumes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Requiring assignability creates perverse incentives: diffused harms become legally permissible regardless of cumulative severity or moral significance.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Liberty requires clear justification; vague aggregate harms provide insufficient grounds to restrict individual freedom.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Assignable victims enable accountability and proportional remedies, while diffuse harms create arbitrary enforcement risk.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill explicitly rejected paternalism and speculative future consequences, favoring concrete present injuries as harm criteria.
      ?

      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.