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
    Restricting individual liberty is justified only when an ... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Restricting individual liberty is justified only when an action harms others by injuring or setting back their important interests.

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mill's harm principle holds that harm consists in injuring or setting back important interests of particular people — interests in which they have rights.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mere offense is comparatively minor and ephemeral and does not constitute harm in this sense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill rejects the regulation of mere offense.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's offense principle demonstrates that seriously offensive conduct in public can warrant legal restriction independent of harm to interests.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If offense can constitute a setback to important interests, the harm principle collapses into a broader moralism Mill explicitly sought to exclude.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Legal moralists like Devlin argue that shared moral norms constitute a social fabric whose erosion genuinely harms the community as a collective entity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If communal integrity counts as a legitimate interest, then purely self-regarding conduct that degrades public morality satisfies Mill's own harm criterion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The harm principle therefore fails to exclude paternalistic and moralistic interventions unless 'harm' is stipulated so narrowly as to beg the question.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.

    Topics

    Justice & PunishmentRights & Liberty

    Related

    Feinberg's offense principle demonstrates that seriously offensive conduct in pu...If communal integrity counts as a legitimate interest, then purely self-regardin...If offense can constitute a setback to important interests, the harm principle c...Legal moralists like Devlin argue that shared moral norms constitute a social fa...
    +6 moreShow less
    Mere offense is comparatively minor and ephemeral and does not constitute harm i...Mill rejects the regulation of mere offense.Mill's harm principle holds that harm consists in injuring or setting back impor...Mill's own account of 'important interests' is indeterminate enough that disgust...The harm principle is the one justification Mill recognizes for restricting libe...The harm principle therefore fails to exclude paternalistic and moralistic inter...

    Similar

    The harm principle is the sole sufficient justification for restrictin...85%The only permissible restrictions on individual liberty are those that...85%Causing harm is not a strictly necessary condition for restricting ind...83%The harm principle justifies restricting liberty only to prevent harm ...82%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    First, recall that Mill distinguishes between harm and mere offense. Not every unwelcome consequence for others counts as a harm. Offenses tend to be comparatively minor and ephemeral. To constitute a harm, an action must be injurious or set back important interests of particular people, interests in which they have rights (I 12; III 1; IV 3, 10, 12; V 5). Whereas Mill appears to reject the regulation of mere offense, the harm principle appears to be the one justification he recognizes for restr
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit