Debates over the regulation or prohibition of prostitution, pornography, drug abuse, homosexuality, and other activities that have traditionally been associated with moral offense have turned away from arguments based on morality and to harm arguments. The broken windows theory of crime prevention has emphasized how minor crimes cause major crimes, neighborhood decline, and urban decay. The focus on harm has become so pervasive that the concept of harm is now setting the very terms of contemporary debate. Claims of harm have become so pervasive that the harm principle has become meaningless. The proliferation of conservative harm arguments has produced an ideological shift in the harm principle from its progressive origins. The original harm principle was never equipped to determine the relative importance of harms, so other approaches are needed to accomplish this goal. Nevertheless, the collapse of the harm principle may ultimately be beneficial in aiding understanding that most human activities probably involve harm. The collapse of the harm principle may promote more informed arguments and conclusions and may force attention to the other normative dimensions lurking beneath the concept of harm. It may also change thinking about remedies and result in nuanced remedies instead of broad prohibitions. Footnotes