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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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