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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    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