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 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.

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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