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
    The harm principle is not necessary to justify restrictio... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The harm principle is not necessary to justify restrictions on liberty

    ConsequentialismRights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    2 reasons for
    1 reason against

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's four-part liberty-limiting principles framework shows harm is just one of several independently sufficient justifications for state coercion.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.The offense principle, legal paternalism, and legal moralism each provide coherent, non-harm-based rationales that withstand scrutiny in liberal democracies.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If multiple principles can each independently justify restrictions, no single principle like harm is logically necessary for justified liberty limitation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Rawlsian political liberalism justifies liberty restrictions via public reason and the harm-independent criterion of fair terms of social cooperation.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Restrictions protecting basic institutional structures can be justified by duties of justice without invoking harm to any particular individual.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill makes principled exceptions to his general anti-paternalism for autonomy-enhancing forms of paternalism
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill permits some forms of offense regulation to prevent public indecency
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Legal moralism can be rejected on cost-benefit grounds without rejecting legal moralism as such
      ?

      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

    Rights & LibertyConsequentialism

    Connections

    2 topics

    Justice & Punishment2 linkedMoral Responsibility1 linked

    Related

    Feinberg's four-part liberty-limiting principles framework shows harm is just on...If multiple principles can each independently justify restrictions, no single pr...Legal moralism can be rejected on cost-benefit grounds without rejecting legal m...Mill makes principled exceptions to his general anti-paternalism for autonomy-en...
    +4 moreShow less
    Mill permits some forms of offense regulation to prevent public indecencyRawlsian political liberalism justifies liberty restrictions via public reason a...Restrictions protecting basic institutional structures can be justified by dutie...

    Similar

    The harm principle is not intended to serve as a necessary condition o...97%The harm principle justifies restricting liberty only to prevent harm ...93%The harm principle is the one justification Mill recognizes for restri...93%The harm principle is the sole sufficient justification for restrictin...92%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    However these questions are resolved, it is doubtful that the harm principle is necessary to justify restrictions on liberty. Mill makes principled exceptions to his general anti-paternalism to defend the permissibility of restrictions on selling oneself into slavery and other autonomy-enhancing forms of paternalism. Mill does allow some forms of offense regulation designed to prevent public indecency. Moreover, though Mill does seem more consistent in his opposition to legal moralism, it is not
    Extraction notes

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

    Details

    The offense principle, legal paternalism, and legal moralism each provide cohere...
    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (2 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit