John Stuart Mill's Harm Theory

John Stuart Mill’s theory on his harm principal can be well supportive since harm is not subjected, contrary, throughout almost all cultures, harm is classified the same. We can see this through laws and punishments that countries have with regards to harm. For example, harm is defined by the Canadian Government as “hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature” (Criminal Code R.S.C., 1985, C. c-46). Similar to the definition given by Australian law harm is “any hurt or injury, which doesn’t necessarily have to be permanent, but must more than “merely transient and trifling” (R v. Donovan 1934 KB 498). These two countries are on opposite sides of the world and have very contrasting cultures – nevertheless, when it comes to harm, their regulations are almost identical. This proves that Mill’s harm theory can be defended since there is evident that countries have the same interpretation, thus is theory can be rightfully put in place.
Although majority of the worlds country has the same definition of harm, there are still people countries like Iraq that see harm as acceptable and a natural way of life. ISIS – Islamic State of Iraq and Syria is a terrorist group who

believe that it is their duty to get rid of any other religion that is not Islam because the Quran calls them to fight and demolish other religions. Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority" (Quran 3:151). This proves that people in Iraq seen harm as acceptable and a valuable means to an end. The only being with power that can stop them from inflecting harm is Allah no one else. It is their belief that no authority can stop them from following the words of the Quran. John Mill’s theory cannot be put in place here since they believe in no authority over Allah and harm is not frowned upon. Nevertheless, they understand the concept of what harm is much like Canada and Australia do, but they believe in using harm in other methods. This can be argued that it defends Mill’s theory since once again, the definition of harm is synonymous throughout countries and there must be a high enough power to fight against ISIS.
The people in Iraq acknowledge what harm is and despite them accepting it is a reasonable means to an end, governing bodies such as the United Nations have stepped and intervened, trying to reason with the people of Iraq and prove that harm is not something that is acceptable. The United Nation along with the Vatican understand that there needs to be a stop to what they are doing “Pope Francis issued a stunning call for global action against ISIS” (Morrissey). Although ISIS believes that causing harm to any nonbeliever to the Islam religion is proper, higher, governing bodies are putting a stop to their actions since it is their duty to provide security and enforce laws although it may not be enforced by the country itself. Therefore, John Mill’s theory legitimate and can be supported by the fact that although ISIS uses harm for different reasons they understand what it does and that although they believe it is correct, people in higher government can punish their actions.
Moreover, religions look at harm equally and believe that it is punishable not only by law but by a higher being. A passage taken from the Catholic passage says: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father, nor the father suffer for the iniquity of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20). In the Catholic bible it states that whoever doesn’t follow the laws of God – “Be kind and compassionate to one another” (Ephesians 4:32), opposite to harm, is susceptible to his punishment. John Mill has not been the only one who suggests that power should be used used punish those who inflict harm onto other, since the bible has been in place for centuries. It is reasonable to believe that his theory is correct because he has not been the first to suggest this theory and it is clear that the interpretation of harm is synonymous throughout religion and society.
Despite the Bible and other religious texts suggest that harm is punishable by their higher being and by law, there are passages stating the usage of harm.

“Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass” (Samuel 15:3). In this passage of the bible, God gives the order to kill and cause harm to men, women, and essentially any living being. Here harm is seen as acceptable and a reasonable action since God – the all-knowing, higher being, orders humans to kill. Evidently, in this passage, harm is interpreted differently than other times since it is seemed to be justified and wanted by

God.
Nevertheless, the justification for it to be acceptable for harm to be done onto people is as a means to stop them from harming the greater good. It is universally agreeable that harm is incorrect, however, when it is used to stop an individual or a group of people from harming the majority or the greater population, it is acceptable. This can be exercised as the authoritarians inflicting harm on individuals who cause harm onto the greater population. God allows harm to be inflicted when it is a means to stop something that is causing even greater harm. In the Bible, God destroys two cities called Sodom and Gomorrah because the cities where full of sin and harm and dangerous people. He ordered Lot to gather all the pure people and to escape the cities before he destroyed them. (Genesis 19) God causes harm onto the people of Sodom and Gomorrah as punishment for the harm they have inflicted onto the city and the rest of the people. This is seen as what John Mill suggest is the people in power preventing citizens from causing harm. God sacrifices the two cities as punishment and for the greater good of the people.