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 Weak moralism must be endorsed if there are cases of harmless wrongdoing where legal regulation is on-balance justified

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

    Reasons For

    2 perspectives
    Reason for 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Cases like fraud and blackmail are better analyzed as relational harms to dignity, trust, or social fabric rather than truly harmless wrongs.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Joel Feinberg's expanded harm principle, including setbacks to interests and dignitary harms, can account for these cases without invoking moralism.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If the purported 'harmless' cases dissolve under rigorous harm analysis, the empirical basis for weak moralism loses its most plausible examples.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason for 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Mill's Liberty Principle permits legal regulation grounded in offense to others, not merely harm, as Feinberg's offense principle demonstrates.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Bestiality and corpse desecration can be regulated under an offense principle without endorsing moralism, since third parties are genuinely affronted.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If offense-based justifications are sufficient for all candidate cases, the claim that moralism must be endorsed rests on a false dilemma.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.Weak moralism is the view that harmless wrongdoing can be pro tanto and on-balance legally justified in at least some cases
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Unsuccessful criminal attempts, fraud and blackmail that cause no harm, desecration of the dead, and bestiality are plausible candidates for regulation despite being harmless
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.If any such cases should be regulated, that regulation cannot be grounded in harm prevention alone
      ?

      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.