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 principle, as Mill formulates it, is agent-relative: it justifies coercion only when A's conduct is the proximate cause of harm to B.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Many serious harms result from cumulative or distributed causation (pollution, market manipulation), making proximate causation inadequate.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Structural injustices and negligence harm people indirectly; restricting coercion to proximate causes leaves systemic wrongs unaddressed.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill himself endorsed paternalism for the incompetent and regulation of dangerous substances, suggesting his principle wasn't purely agent-relative.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Agent-relative harm principles respect individual liberty by limiting state intervention to cases of direct causal responsibility.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Proximate causation provides an objective, verifiable standard that prevents arbitrary coercion based on speculative or remote harms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Holding agents accountable only for direct harms they cause aligns with fundamental intuitions about moral desert and fair punishment.
      ?

      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.