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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The harm principle, as Mill formulates it, is agent-relative: it justifies coercion only when A's conduct is the proximate cause of harm to B.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Expanding the principle to cover omissions collapses the distinction between negative and positive liberty, which Mill's framework depends upon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without this distinction, the harm principle loses its limiting function and becomes a blank check for paternalistic interference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Robert Nozick's entitlement theory holds that individuals possess rights as side-constraints, not as factors to be maximized across persons.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Compelling A to benefit B treats A's labor and liberty as resources available for social allocation, violating A's self-ownership.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A forced-benefit obligation cannot be grounded in harm prevention because harm prevention requires a prior wrongful act by A, which omissions alone do not supply.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The harm principle permits restrictions on freedom to prevent harm to others.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

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

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Good Samaritan scenarios involve harm to B that occurs independently of A's agency.
      ?

      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.