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 own account of 'important interests' is indetermin... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Restricting individual liberty is justified only when an action harms others by injuring or setting back their important interests.

    Mill's own account of 'important interests' is indeterminate enough that disgust, dignity violations, and moral distress can plausibly qualify as setbacks to them.

    ?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 never provides strict criteria for what counts as an 'important interest,' leaving conceptual space for subjective experiences.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Dignitary and emotional harms genuinely constrain human flourishing and autonomy, fitting Mill's broader concern with well-being.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's harm principle targets interests worth protecting; systematic disgust and dignity violations undermine self-respect and agency.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill distinguished between legitimate interests and mere preferences; disgust is often a subjective response rather than a real setback.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Treating moral distress as an 'important interest' opens the door to censoring unpopular speech on grounds of mere offense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill emphasized concrete physical and material harms; psychological discomfort alone cannot meet the threshold of harmful setback.
      ?

      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

    Dignitary and emotional harms genuinely constrain human flourishing and autonomy...Mill distinguished between legitimate interests and mere preferences; disgust is...Mill emphasized concrete physical and material harms; psychological discomfort a...Mill never provides strict criteria for what counts as an 'important interest,' ...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mill's harm principle targets interests worth protecting; systematic disgust and...Restricting individual liberty is justified only when an action harms others by ...Treating moral distress as an 'important interest' opens the door to censoring u...

    Details

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