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 must rely on the broader harm-prevention rationale rather than the narrower anti-harming rationale

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's own text in On Liberty explicitly limits the principle to preventing harm to others, not to maximizing harm prevention generally.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The anti-harming rationale can accommodate Good Samaritan cases by treating omissions as a form of harm when a duty relationship exists.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill distinguishes between the harm principle as a liberty-limiting principle and separate grounds for positive duties, keeping the rationales coherent without collapsing them.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's taxonomy distinguishes harm-prevention from offense and legal moralism, and he treats anti-harming as a sufficient standalone rationale for most of Mill's cases.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Expanding the harm principle to a broader harm-prevention rationale risks licensing paternalistic and welfarist interventions Mill explicitly sought to rule out.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Good Samaritan laws and laws compelling testimony in court require justification under the harm principle
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Good Samaritan laws and compelled testimony laws cannot be justified by the narrower anti-harming rationale, which only covers the party whose liberty is restricted
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Only the broader harm-prevention rationale can account for these laws
      ?

      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.