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 indeterminacy of 'harm to others' means the principle... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→Power can be rightfully exercised over a member of a civilized community only to prevent harm to others.

    The indeterminacy of 'harm to others' means the principle functions as a rhetorical constraint rather than a determinate criterion, undermining its claim to limit sovereign power.

    ?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.Core concepts like 'harm' lack fixed boundaries: physical injury, offense, opportunity cost, and dignitary harm compete without settled priority.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Historical actors invoked 'harm to others' to justify slavery, censorship, and colonialism, showing the principle accommodates opposing conclusions.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Without determinate criteria, powerful actors can selectively invoke harm rhetoric to constrain disfavored groups while exempting favored ones.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Indeterminacy at boundaries doesn't eliminate the principle's force: clear cases (murder, assault) constrain power in predictable ways regardless.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Historical misuse shows rhetorical failure, not logical incoherence—societies developed better harm definitions precisely by testing the principle's limits.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.All legal standards (reasonableness, fairness, necessity) contain indeterminacy yet function as genuine constraints through institutional review and precedent.
      ?

      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.

    Connections

    2 topics

    Rights & Liberty1 linkedJustice & Punishment1 linked

    Related

    All legal standards (reasonableness, fairness, necessity) contain indeterminacy ...Core concepts like 'harm' lack fixed boundaries: physical injury, offense, oppor...Historical actors invoked 'harm to others' to justify slavery, censorship, and c...Historical misuse shows rhetorical failure, not logical incoherence—societies de...
    +3 moreShow less
    Indeterminacy at boundaries doesn't eliminate the principle's force: clear cases...Power can be rightfully exercised over a member of a civilized community only to...Without determinate criteria, powerful actors can selectively invoke harm rhetor...

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    2 (1 for, 1 against)
    Edits
    1 edit