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 The common libertarian reading of the harm principle as limiting any and all liberty only to prevent force or fraud is not well supported

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.A robust harm principle targets basic liberties rather than all liberty
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The harm-prevention rationale is broader than the anti-harming rationale
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.These qualifications move the harm principle far from the libertarian reading that restricts only force or fraud
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill explicitly endorses taxes, compulsory education, and environmental regulations as legitimate state interventions in On Liberty.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.These interventions cannot be reduced to preventing force or fraud, yet Mill treats them as consistent with his harm principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A libertarian reading that excludes such interventions therefore misrepresents Mill's own stated applications of the principle.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's harm principle is grounded in utilitarian reasoning about aggregate welfare, not in natural rights theories that privilege non-interference.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Nozick's libertarian framework, which does restrict liberty only to prevent force or fraud, depends on self-ownership rights foreign to Mill's utilitarianism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Conflating Mill's consequentialist harm principle with Nozickian side-constraint theory imports incompatible metaphysical commitments into Mill's framework.
      ?

      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.