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
    The harm principle is the sole sufficient justification f... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Restrictions on liberty that can only be justified by moralism or paternalism are impermissible.

    The harm principle is the sole sufficient justification for restricting individual liberty.

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

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Rights & LibertyConsequentialism

    Related

    A restriction lacking harm-prevention justification falls outside the only permi...Restrictions on liberty that can only be justified by moralism or paternalism ar...Some restrictions cannot be justified by appeal to harm prevention, only by appe...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Rights & Liberty
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.

    Similar

    The harm principle is the one justification Mill recognizes for restri...97%The harm principle justifies restricting liberty only to prevent harm ...95%Mill's harm principle holds that liberty may only be restricted to pre...94%The harm principle permits restricting liberty when individuals harm o...94%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    These distinctions allow Mill to defend a categorical approach to liberal rights. To decide whether an individual’s liberty ought to be protected, we must ascertain to which category the potential restriction of liberty belongs: offense, moralism, paternalism, and harm prevention. Mill seems to permit or forbid restrictions on liberty by category, claiming that the only restrictions that are permissible involve harm prevention. Of course, a given regulation might fall under more than one categor

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective