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
    Preventing harm to B does not require showing that A is t... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Moral Responsibility
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Restrictions on A's freedom requiring A to benefit B may be justified on grounds of preventing harm to B, even if they cannot be justified on grounds of preventing A from harming B.

    Preventing harm to B does not require showing that A is the agent causing harm to B.

    Moral ResponsibilityRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Moral ResponsibilityRights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Justice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Moral Responsibility
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Good Samaritan scenarios involve harm to B that occurs independently of A's agen...Restrictions on A's freedom requiring A to benefit B may be justified on grounds...The harm principle permits restrictions on freedom to prevent harm to others.

    Similar

    Double effect additionally requires that the harm not be implicated as...85%If the harm is intended as a means, Double Effect does not apply.82%Mill requires only that an action risks harm, not that harm is certain...80%Warren Quinn's substitution of 'direct agency' for 'intending to cause...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    Notice that even if my failure to rescue the child does not harm him, he is nonetheless harmed by drowning. After all, he would have been better off had he not fallen into the pond and drowned. This suggests a possible way for Mill to square Good Samaritan laws with the harm principle. Even if restrictions on A’s freedom, requiring him to benefit B, cannot be justified on grounds of preventing A from harming B, they may nonetheless be justified on the grounds of preventing harm to B. This draws

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective