The harm principle is not intended to serve as a necessary condition on any and all restrictions on liberty.

Rights & Liberty

?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

1 reason for

0 reasons against

Reasons For

1 perspective

Reason for

1.Mill is interested in defending fundamental or basic liberties rather than liberty per se.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.Mill specifically focuses on liberties of conscience, expressive liberties, liberties of tastes and pursuits, and liberties of association.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.These fundamental liberties play a more central role in practical deliberations and the formation and pursuit of personal ideals than other liberties.
?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

Next step

Based on where you are in your exploration

Browse more in Rights & Liberty

Source

AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid

SEP: mill-moral-political

View source passage

One Millian response is to deny that the harm principle is intended to serve as a necessary condition on any and all restrictions on liberty. As we saw, Mill is interested in defending fundamental or basic liberties, rather than liberty per se. In particular, he is interested in liberties of conscience and expressive liberties, liberties of tastes and pursuits, and liberties of association (I 12). He can defend these liberties as playing a more central role in our practical deliberations and our

Extraction notes

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

Details

Type: claim
Perspectives: 1 (1 for, 0 against)
Edits: 1 edit