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
    Some forms of offense regulation are permissible within a... — Carmelics
    Home/Justice & Punishment
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Some forms of offense regulation are permissible within a Millian framework

    Justice & Punishment
    ?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 does not straightforwardly settle all questions about legal regulation
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some offenses constitute public nuisances that cause disagreeable mental states
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Even in a free society, the law commonly regulates nuisance
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's harm principle explicitly restricts legal coercion to preventing harm to others, not merely disagreeable mental states in observers.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Offense causes no setback to interests in Mill's sense unless it involves a wrongful act that damages a victim's welfare or autonomy.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Permitting offense regulation under nuisance theory smuggles in a majority-preference standard that Mill's liberty principle was designed to exclude.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's own taxonomy in 'Offense to Others' concedes that pure offense, unlike harm, cannot justify criminalization without independent normative scaffolding Mill rejects.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The 'seriousness of offense outweighs agent's interests' balancing test introduces a utilitarian aggregation logic that undermines the side-constraint function of Mill's liberty principle.
      ?

      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

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Even in a free society, the law commonly regulates nuisanceFeinberg's own taxonomy in 'Offense to Others' concedes that pure offense, unlik...Mill's harm principle does not straightforwardly settle all questions about lega...Mill's harm principle explicitly restricts legal coercion to preventing harm to ...
    +5 moreShow less
    Offense causes no setback to interests in Mill's sense unless it involves a wron...Permitting offense regulation under nuisance theory smuggles in a majority-prefe...Regulation of nuisance can be justified when the seriousness of the offense outw...Some offenses constitute public nuisances that cause disagreeable mental statesThe 'seriousness of offense outweighs agent's interests' balancing test introduc...

    Similar

    An appeal to offense as grounds for regulation contradicts Mill's blan...82%Mill permits some forms of offense regulation to prevent public indece...82%Mill rejects the regulation of mere offense.80%Mill's own position on offense regulation is not fully consistent.77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    Mill may not have a consistent view about offense. It is instructive in this context to consider briefly the views of Joel Feinberg, who sees himself articulating a Millian position in his important four-volume work Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (1984–88). Feinberg understands his own defense of Millian principles as involving a modified Millian categorical approach. His main modification of Millian principles is to permit some forms of offense regulation. In Offense to Others (1985), Feinber
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

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