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

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 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 for 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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