Mill's Harm Principle In Contemporary Society

In a contemporary society, Mill’s Harm principle no longer functions as a practical way to consider freedom. Mill’s harm principle refers only to harm inflicted upon others and regards each individual as the highest authority on their own wellbeing. However, in today’s society where mental illness is finally becoming destigmatised should it be believed that each individual can truly be the sole overseer of their safety? Quickly the flaws in the Harm Principle become apparent. The Harm principle disregards psychological harm entirely, allowing for practises such as self-harm; a complete contradiction to modern day mental health practises. Finally, the harm principle doesn’t examine the outward harm certain self-destructive behaviours can manifest.

Mill’s harm principle discusses constructivist theory, “The likings and dislikings of society… [have] determined the rules laid down for general observance, under the penalties of law or opinion” (J, Mill, 1859, 11). Constructivist theory states that the importance placed on certain rules in society are historically and socially constructed and not by any means inevitable. This creationist ideology rightly suggests that all moral codes and the extent of freedom in society are human-manufactured creations, which intern allows them to manifest in different variations throughout history to the present day. Therefore, it is easy to posit that the harm principle was once a necessary or all-encompassing yardstick with which to measure personal freedom, however, in a disillusioned and far more aware society such as today, the harm principle is far to minimalistic to encompass the intricacies of personal

Despite it being blatantly apparent in contemporary society that one individuals antecedent self-harm, can then become harm onto others. The principal doesn’t extend pass physical, and doesn’t cover the psychological and mental impact on others by way of ones actions. In one individual’s suicide many more are left in bereavement. In Australia 2,866 people died from intentional self-harm in 2016 (ABS, 2016), and it is estimated that from each case of suicide there is a network of on average 10 individuals that will enter into serious bereavement. Suicide is incredibly destructive in the psyche of survivors as its moral and cultural complexities often force suicide survivors into unhealthy psychological mourning practises. Suicide bereavement differs from other forms of bereavement due to its surrounding societal stigma. Jill Fischer a Doctor of Psychology, discusses the complexity of this guilt and how it can cause immense harm by proxy to suicide survivors. Fischer states that “chronic or complicated mourning… [are] acts of penitence and self-castigation… alleviating guilt… by causing suffering to oneself” (Fischer, 2006, 52). This heightened form of mourning is highly detrimental to suicide survivors, some recorded cases even “killing themselves” (Fischer, 2006, 51) as a guilt-driven connection between themselves and the