John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle Essay

1941 Words4 Pages

John Stuart Mill crafted the “harm principle” in order to establish a reasonable basis of conduct within a structured society. The central thesis of this paper is, Mill’s “harm principle” allows governments to act in ways that will allow others to grow and purse happiness in a society. By examining Mill’s principle, the paper will show how governments are justified to interfere with an individual’s liberty. This argument will provide a reasonable bases of government intervention regarding human nature. Governments then have a right to control members of a society by means of coercion.
Government Coercion and Citizenry Will
Harm Principle The central idea of the “harm principle” is that a member of society can justifiably be coercion by the …show more content…

Mill states that, “the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to someone else… If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation” (Mill, 1859). The state, by its existence as a sovereign body of order and protection and given powers to implement these ideals, has a right to punish those who do harm to others. It is then that the state must first establish that an evil has been committed; as was stated previously, it is when one coerces another in a way that detracts their liberty. Liberty is, “the inward domain of consciousness...absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects…doing as well like, subject to such consequences as may follow…freedom to unite” (Mill, 1859). Simply, Mill equates liberty with self-choice; and that these choices must exists within a societies laws and not violate other’s self-choices. In sum, the state has legal authority as an object of sovereignty and the powers that come with it to implement coercive punishments when one commits evil onto others; this then, is Mill’s “harm

Show More
Related

  • Utilitarianism and Morality in John Stuart Mill´s Essay

    1012 Words  | 3 Pages

    For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.

    Read More

  • Liberty And Paternalism

    1660 Words  | 4 Pages

    After reading both articles, “Paternalism” by Dworkin and “On Liberty” by Mill, I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some intervention is necessary under certain circumstances. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, but also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the protection of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to interfere with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governments main reasons for existence is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of my proposed conclusion.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.

    Read More

  • Philosophy: John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism

    1314 Words  | 3 Pages

    Philosophy has offered many works and debates on morality and ethics. One of these works is the concept of utilitarianism. One of the most prominent writers on the theory of utilitarianism is John Stuart Mill. He suggests that utilitarianism may be the guide for morality. His writing on utilitarianism transcends through the present in relation to the famous movie The Matrix. In the movie, people live in a virtual reality where they are relatively happy and content and the real world is filled with a constant struggle to survive. The movie revolves around Neo, who tries to free people from the virtual world in which they live. In light of utilitarianism, freeing these people would be morally wrong. In this essay, I will first explain John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism and some objections it faces. I will then talk about utilitarianism’s relation to The Matrix and why it would be morally wrong to free the people and subject them to the real world.

    Read More

  • Stuart Mill Paternalism

    1093 Words  | 3 Pages

    One of the more severe charges against Mill's conception of liberty involves socio-cultural background of the author's politics. Mill advocates paternalism on moral grounds in several instances that suggest an intellectual bias and a level of intellectual superiority, embedded in the nineteenth century culture and the Western world. Under Mill's paradigm, freedom is limited to those who are capable of rationality, allowing despotism as a sufficient alternative to 'educating' in all other instances (Goldberg, 2000). Thus, one's incompetence allows for a coercive force and social control (Conly, 2013).

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.

    Read More

  • An Analysis Of Jeremy Bentham's 'Anarchical Fallacies'

    2138 Words  | 5 Pages

    Mill’s convincing argument explains the context that natural rights are nonsense when they do not have legal protection and the hierarchal morality innately exists in mankind. Together Mill accounts for the legal and morality of natural rights.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Legal Moralism

    732 Words  | 2 Pages

    Meaning that a state or an individual can limit another person’s liberty in an effort to protect the person from self-harm, since it justifies the restricting of liberty to engage in actions that threaten imminent harm to others. As utilitarianism, Mill tries to find the best possible outcome for the greatest number of

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary, but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. The harm principle was published in Mill’s work, Of Liberty, in 1859. He states, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals.

    Read More

  • Mill On Liberty

    332 Words  | 1 Pages

    English philosopher, John Stuart Mill’s work, On Liberty, is one of the most classical text that influenced modern Liberalism of the nineteenth century. The question he was struggling with is, when the government can legitimately restrict your freedom by imposing and enforcing laws. Always, never, only sometime? The legitimate way of proposing this question might be: what is the proper scope of criminal law in a just society? Mill offer a well-known and quit simple answer, if your action harm someone else, then the government can legitimately step in and stop you from doing so or punishing you if you do but only if that said action harm someone else or about to harm someone. If the action by a single person only harm that single person, then

    Read More

  • What is harm?

    1801 Words  | 4 Pages

    In On Liberty, Mill presents and argues “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will is to prevent harm to others. ” (9). Society has the right to use the law to regulate the conduct that consists in of “ injuring the interest of one another, or rather certain interest which, either by express legal provision or tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights’ (chp 4; 73). Society may use public opinion to monitor conduct that “may be hurtful to others or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going to the length of violating any of their constituted rights’ (chp 4; 73). Needless to say that, “as soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interest of others, society has jurisdiction over it” (chp 4; 73). Mill obviously is implying that harming someone means injuring his or her interests. Everyone has interests they consider important and ought to be protected by law as rights. Being that Mill is a utilitarian, utility imposes that it is the “permanent interest of man as a progressive being” (10) that should be protected by law. Unfortunately, morality and immorality play a roll within the harm principle; many actions may be interpreted as immoral harming others interest but not being protected by rights.

    Read More

  • Negative and Positive Freedom

    885 Words  | 2 Pages

    Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty"

    1403 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society. Complete free exercise will inhibit individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm on others. He argues that one is free to behave “according to his own inclination and judgment in things which concern himself” as long as “he refrains from molesting” (64). The problem arises in the freedom allowed to the individual performing the potentially dangerous act.

    Read More

  • Minority Opinion In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    592 Words  | 2 Pages

    After a thorough analysis of a portion of John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, one can explore Mill’s argument that people should not limit the dissenting opinion. He uses his ideas about liberty, authority, and morality in the text to argue that opinions should not be limited. Mill would argue that because people are fallible, people should attentively listen to what their peers have to say. Mill believes people should not be allowed to limit someone’s opinion because of three arguments. The minority opinion could be true, the majority opinion could be true and the minority false, or the majority and minority opinion could be partially true and partially false. It is wrong for the majority to suppress the opinion of a single person because of the overall harming effect.

    Read More

More about John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle Essay

Open Document