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

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

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 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

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 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

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

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