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 introduction of a new category of legally cognizable ... — Carmelics
    Home
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Challenges→It is difficult to determine how significantly Feinberg's balancing approach departs from Mill's liberal principles.

    The introduction of a new category of legally cognizable harm—offense—marks a principled boundary crossing, not a minor refinement of Mill's framework.

    ?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's harm principle requires tangible injury to interests; offense is purely subjective feeling, fundamentally different in kind.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Legally recognizing offense necessitates state judgment about acceptable expression, abandoning Mill's neutrality on lifestyle choices.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Offense lacks the limiting principle harm possesses—potentially infinite people claim offense to infinite forms of expression.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Mill himself acknowledged non-physical harms (damaged reputation, emotional distress), so offense fits within his expandable framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Boundary between offense and cognizable harm is gradual and contestable, not principled—similar to recognizing new torts historically.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Many legitimate legal harms (defamation, harassment) depend partly on subjective reception, so subjectivity alone doesn't exclude offense.
      ?

      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

    Boundary between offense and cognizable harm is gradual and contestable, not pri...It is difficult to determine how significantly Feinberg's balancing approach dep...Legally recognizing offense necessitates state judgment about acceptable express...Many legitimate legal harms (defamation, harassment) depend partly on subjective...
    +3 moreShow less
    Mill himself acknowledged non-physical harms (damaged reputation, emotional dist...Mill's harm principle requires tangible injury to interests; offense is purely s...Offense lacks the limiting principle harm possesses—potentially infinite people ...

    Details

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