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 restrictions in question do not restrict fundamental ... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→Modest restrictions on liberty necessary to provide significant public goods can be justified even when those restrictions do not prevent harms.

    The restrictions in question do not restrict fundamental liberties such as liberties of conscience, expression, tastes, pursuits, or association.

    Rights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Rights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism3 linked

    Related

    Education, security, and sanitation serve as necessary conditions of human happi...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Rights & Liberty
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    Modest restrictions on liberty necessary to provide significant public goods can...
    These restrictions help secure goods such as education, security, and sanitation...

    Similar

    Mill specifically focuses on liberties of conscience, expressive liber...82%The only permissible restrictions on individual liberty are those that...81%The scope restriction on Mill's principles makes sense only if basic l...79%Autonomy and freedom of conscience support separating legal requiremen...79%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: mill-moral-political
    View source passageHide passage
    One Millian response is to deny that the harm principle is intended to serve as a necessary condition on any and all restrictions on liberty. As we saw, Mill is interested in defending fundamental or basic liberties, rather than liberty per se. In particular, he is interested in liberties of conscience and expressive liberties, liberties of tastes and pursuits, and liberties of association (I 12). He can defend these liberties as playing a more central role in our practical deliberations and our

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective