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 state is justified in using non-coercive means to per... — Carmelics
    Home/Rights & Liberty
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    The state is justified in using non-coercive means to persuade citizens to make wise or better choices

    Rights & Liberty
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.
    1 reason for
    2 reasons against

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Considerations of the individual or common good may entitle the state to act
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Non-coercive persuasion does not force individuals and therefore does not violate liberal principles
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.State persuasion campaigns carry implicit coercive weight because citizens cannot easily opt out of being governed by the persuading institution.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Mill's harm principle requires neutrality on conceptions of the good, making state promotion of 'wise choices' a form of perfectionist overreach.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.When the state defines wisdom, it systematically disadvantages minority conceptions of the good life that diverge from majoritarian norms.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Feinberg's autonomy-based liberalism holds that self-regarding choices, even unwise ones, fall outside legitimate state concern entirely.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Designating some choices as 'better' presupposes a state-endorsed conception of the good that Rawlsian political liberalism explicitly prohibits.
      ?

      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.

    Topics

    Rights & Liberty

    Connections

    1 topic

    Consequentialism1 linked

    Related

    Considerations of the individual or common good may entitle the state to actDesignating some choices as 'better' presupposes a state-endorsed conception of ...Feinberg's autonomy-based liberalism holds that self-regarding choices, even unw...Mill's harm principle requires neutrality on conceptions of the good, making sta...
    +3 moreShow less
    Non-coercive persuasion does not force individuals and therefore does not violat...State persuasion campaigns carry implicit coercive weight because citizens canno...When the state defines wisdom, it systematically disadvantages minority concepti...

    Similar

    The state may use non-coercive means to promote individual or common g...89%The state may use non-coercive means to warn individuals of harms to t...84%The justification for state coercion must include a requirement that t...79%Either state coercion is morally acceptable, in which case no special ...77%

    Source

    AI-extracted1/3 agreementValid
    SEP: pornography-censorship
    View source passageHide passage
    However, following Mill, liberals are generally happy to allow that considerations of the individual or common good may entitle the state to use other, so-called non-coercive means to persuade citizens to make wise or better choices. Thus, public education campaigns designed to inform citizens of the dangers of smoking or excessive alcohol consumption, or to persuade them to make “wise” choices (for example, to eat more fruits and vegetables) may be justified. While others cannot force an indivi
    Extraction notes

    Validity: Extracted via Max plan + API grounding/validity checks

    Details

    Type
    claim
    Perspectives
    3 (1 for, 2 against)
    Edits
    1 edit