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 harm-prevention rationale justifies greater restrictions on liberty than the anti-harming rationale

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.The harm-prevention rationale is constrained by epistemic uncertainty: we cannot reliably predict which restrictions will actually prevent harm.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The anti-harming rationale, by targeting demonstrated causal agency, produces more reliable harm reduction with fewer liberty costs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A rationale that reliably reduces harm with fewer restrictions is less expansive in practice than one that licenses speculative preventive interventions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's anti-harming rationale already encompasses harm prevention, since restricting the agent who causes harm prevents that harm from occurring.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.If anti-harming restrictions prevent harm by targeting the causal source, the two rationales are extensionally equivalent in scope, not hierarchically ordered.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.The supporting argument's premise that harm-prevention is 'broader' conflates the causal structure of harm with the range of potential intervening parties.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.The anti-harming rationale only justifies restricting liberty to prevent those whose liberty is restricted from causing harm to another
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The harm-prevention rationale justifies restricting liberty to prevent others from being harmed more broadly
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A broader rationale licenses a wider range of restrictions
      ?

      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.