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

“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