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 allowance of regulating public drunkenness cannot be reconciled with Mill's blanket prohibition on offense regulation.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mill holds a blanket prohibition on regulating conduct merely because it is offensive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill claims that drinking done in public becomes offensive and therefore regulable.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If publicity makes conduct regulable because it makes the conduct offensive, then Mill's justification for regulating public drunkenness is an appeal to offense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill distinguishes harm from offense by whether conduct violates assignable obligations to others, not merely by whether others find it unpleasant.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Public drunkenness violates the positive duty to maintain minimal civic competence in shared spaces, making it a harm-based rather than offense-based restriction.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Therefore Mill's regulation of public drunkenness appeals to duty-violation, not mere offense, preserving rather than contradicting his anti-offense principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's taxonomy distinguishes 'profound offense' involving rights-violations in public from mere 'nuisance offense,' a distinction traceable to Mill's own harm principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Public drunkenness forces non-consenting persons into degrading or threatening encounters they cannot reasonably avoid, constituting a liberty-imposition rather than an offense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill's liberty principle permits restricting conduct that imposes non-consensual conditions on others' freedom, which is categorically distinct from restricting conduct merely because it disgusts observers.
      ?

      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.