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 is not necessary to justify restrictions on liberty

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 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 against 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.