Feinberg's Harm and Offense Principles

The idea that society has the right to create and enforce moral standards.

The idea that certain acts can be restricted or prohibited by law even if they don't cause harm to others, but are offensive.

Society's shared values and beliefs about right and wrong.

The key question in determining if an act is a "wrongful offense" is whether a reasonable person would judge it to be so. It's not about whether someone was actually offended or if it was intended to be offensive.

Feinberg argues that laws against offensiveness should be less severe than laws against harm, because they only address minor offenses. This helps avoid overreacting to minor disagreements.

The judgment of a reasonable person, used as a standard for determining what is morally wrong in society.

The idea that society has the right to use the law to enforce moral standards, even if those actions don't directly harm anyone.

The belief that society can use law to protect its shared moral code.

A view that actions are only immoral if the negative consequences outweigh the positive ones. Mill advocated for this principle.

The idea that society can use law to maintain its existence and order.

A principle that suggests limitations on individual liberty should be justified by a clear and compelling reason.

Devlin argued that society should be able to use the law to enforce morality to protect itself from decay and disintegration.

Examples of actions often considered "morals offenses" include adultery, fornication, sodomy, incest, prostitution, cruelty to animals, mistreatment of corpses, and desecration of the flag.

The absence of legal coercion, meaning freedom from being forced by law to do something.

A principle suggesting that actions should not be made illegal unless they harm others.

The idea that actions that are immoral should also be prohibited by law.

A principle that states that the government has the right to limit individual freedom only to prevent harm to others.

A principle that suggests the government can restrict actions that cause significant offense to others, even if no direct harm is involved. This might include public indecency or hate speech.

The idea that the harm and offense principles provide the sole justification for criminal prohibitions. It argues that individuals should be free to do as they please as long as their actions don't harm or significantly offend others.

The government's right to restrict an individual's actions to prevent harm to themselves, even if they consent to the risky behavior. This might encompass laws against drug use or seatbelt requirements.

Preventing moral harm to oneself, even if there's no physical, psychological, or financial harm. Moral harm is considered 'harm to one's character' or 'becoming a worse person.'

The state can prohibit actions that harm no one, if they're considered morally wrong.

It's morally good to prohibit an action if it benefits others.

It's morally good to prohibit an action if it benefits the person doing it.

Promoting ethical character improvement is a good reason for a prohibition.

This principle states that interference with someone's freedom is only justified to protect others from harm.

We are required to contribute to the common good even if it limits our freedom.

Actions causing no harm to others can be prohibited if they're considered morally wrong or if they benefit others.