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 was never restricted by Mill to acts o... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Good Samaritan laws cannot straightforwardly be justified by appeal to the harm principle.

    The harm principle was never restricted by Mill to acts of commission; he explicitly acknowledges compellable positive duties in cases of obvious public benefit.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Mill explicitly discusses compulsory education and taxation for public works, showing he accepted positive duties beyond mere harm prevention.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's principle targets wrongful injury, not inaction; preventing obvious public harms may require affirmative duties to avoid injustice.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Mill distinguishes between self-regarding and other-regarding conduct; obvious public benefits create other-regarding obligations to contribute.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill's few positive duty examples concern preventing direct harm (education, safety), not compelled contributions to general public benefit.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's core principle restricts coercion to preventing harm to others; positive duties expand state power beyond his stated limiting framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Claiming Mill endorsed broad positive duties misreads isolated concessions as fundamental doctrine, conflating prevention with mandatory promotion.
      ?

      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.

    Key Terms

    knowledge(Distinguished from mere true belief, which may be the product of indoctrination and need not exercise deliberative capacities.)
    Justified true belief — true belief that has been arrived at through the exercise of deliberative capacities, including comparison of and deliberation among alternatives.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Rights & Liberty1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    Claiming Mill endorsed broad positive duties misreads isolated concessions as fu...Good Samaritan laws cannot straightforwardly be justified by appeal to the harm ...Mill distinguishes between self-regarding and other-regarding conduct; obvious p...Mill explicitly discusses compulsory education and taxation for public works, sh...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mill's core principle restricts coercion to preventing harm to others; positive ...Mill's few positive duty examples concern preventing direct harm (education, saf...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit
    Mill's principle targets wrongful injury, not inaction; preventing obvious publi...