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 conception of liberal rights requires more than the harm principle.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mill has doubts about strong sufficiency of the harm principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Without strong sufficiency, the harm principle must be supplemented with additional principles.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A conception of liberal rights that requires supplementary principles goes beyond the harm principle alone.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's On Liberty explicitly invokes a 'very simple principle' but also grounds rights in utility as the 'ultimate appeal on all ethical questions'.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Utilitarianism as Mill conceives it requires protecting individuality and higher pleasures, generating rights-claims the harm principle alone cannot specify.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bernard Williams and John Gray have both argued that Mill's liberal framework is pluralistic, requiring competence, autonomy, and development norms beyond mere non-harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's discussion of 'experiments in living' in On Liberty implies a positive right to self-development that harm-avoidance alone cannot establish or protect.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.D.G. Brown and C.L. Ten have demonstrated that Mill's harm principle underdetermines which interferences are impermissible without appeal to a background theory of interests and autonomy.
      ?

      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