The ideas constructed by Robert E. Goodin and Thomas Szaz have a direct correlation with that of Mill’s harm principle. Thomas Szaz presents ideas that contradict the harm principle. His points outline the fact that it is okay to kill yourself because it’s an expression of freedom. This declines the ideas of the harm principle because he’s not taking into consideration those that would be affected by the death. Robert E. Goodin accepts the ideas of the harm principle because although he tries to persuade society into quitting smoking, he does it because of the risks of death that smoking cigarettes can bring. In order to clearly understand how these arguments engage with the harm principle; the harm principle must be explained.
The harm principle is defined by John Stuart Mill as coercive acts of freedom for personal pleasure, as long as these actions do not threaten/harm anyone else. Coercive would be the act of forcing someone to do or not to do something against their will. “The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it (Mill, 16).”
…show more content…
Thomas Szaz believed that it should be socially acceptable to self-medicate; regardless of the death that may come with it, which is against the concept of the harm principle. Robert E. Goodin believed that cigarette smokers did not fully understand or accept the dangers of smoking and he presented ideas and statistics to make everyone aware and prevent deaths, which is in line with the harm principle. In their analyses of recreational drugs and smoking Thomas Szaz and Robert E. Goodin have polar opposite opinions when related to the harm
In “Alternate Possibilities and Moral Responsibility”, Harry Frankfurt attempts to falsify the Principle of Alternate Possibilities. The Principle of Alternate Possibilities is the principle where a person is morally responsible for what he has done only if he could have done otherwise. A person would be morally responsible for their own actions if done by themselves. If someone else had forced that person to do the action, then the person doing the action is not morally responsible. Frankfurt does not believe this to be true and that the person doing the action is morally responsible. Frankfurt’s objections towards the Principle of Alternate Possibilities shows the refutation of natural intuition and places moral responsibility upon those who deserve it.
The motion picture A Few Good Men challenges the question of why Marines obey their superiors’ orders without hesitation. The film illustrates a story about two Marines, Lance Corporal Harold W. Dawson and Private First Class Louden Downey charged for the murder of Private First Class William T. Santiago. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee, who is known to be lackadaisical and originally considers offering a plea bargain in order to curtail Dawson’s and Downey’s sentence, finds himself fighting for the freedom of the Marines; their argument: they simply followed the orders given for a “Code Red”. The question of why people follow any order given has attracted much speculation from the world of psychology. Stanley Milgram, a Yale psychologist, conducted an experiment in which randomly selected students were asked to deliver “shocks” to an unknown subject when he or she answered a question wrong. In his article, “The Perils of Obedience”, Milgram concludes anyone will follow an order with the proviso that it is given by an authoritative figure. Two more psychologists that have been attracted to the question of obedience are Herbert C. Kelman, a professor at Harvard University, and V. Lee Hamilton, a professor at the University of Maryland. In their piece, Kelman and Hamilton discuss the possibilities of why the soldiers of Charlie Company slaughtered innocent old men, women, and children. The Marines from the film obeyed the ordered “Code Red” because of how they were trained, the circumstances that were presented in Guantanamo Bay, and they were simply performing their job.
By saying smokers have the “right to die,” but non-smokers have the right to “not die” puts non-smokers in the dangers of smoking as well. This says that non-smokers can also be harmed by smoke and can cause death either way. A letter to Jeremiah O’Leary said, “Smoke yourself to death, but please not me.” By the writer adding this in her article, she inserts brutality from the non-smokers. It makes the readers believe that non-smokers will use violence and harsh words to stop smokers from smoking.
The smoking issue is very complicated and some of the arguments are beyond the scope of this essay. Still, we can obtain a balanced outlook if we consider the following: the facts of smoking, individual right, societal responsibility, and the stigma of smoking. Haviland and King write essays which contain very important points, but seem to contain a bias which may alienate some people. To truly reach a consensus on the smoking issue, we must be willing to meet each other halfway. We must strike equilibrium between individual right and societal responsibility.
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.
There is clearly no way tobacco will never be outlawed but I believe there should be tighter restrictions on age limits throughout the world, and restrictions on the materials that are used in cigarette processing. Who is just letting cigarette companies continue to poison people and cause cancer risk? Throughout my essay I will analyze the affects of cigarette use on the society of the world and the elaborate corruption that keeps cigarette companies in business.
On the one hand, it was investigated how this principal of liberty and autonomy challenges the need for state control, embedded in paternalism. Mill shows that individuality ensures freedom and a regulatory system for a functional society that would be compromised by paternalism or outside coercive forces. Self-development and social progress are the core principles of Millian Utilitarianism, which restricts state control to a single problem of harm to others, leaving a very limited space for regulation of individuals. However, at the same time limits and boundaries of his 'harm principle' are rather unclear, and there is a strong evidence to suggest that all acts are social acts that involve affect others. Hence, Mill's solutions within the harm principle can be interpreted in a similar way to soft paternalism
...onally accept harm as legitimate reason for the government to restrict individual freedoms, everyone's understanding of what constitutes 'harm' is different. Utilitarian's may propose that harm is anything that is detrimental to an individual's happiness. If freedom is as important as Mill suggests then we can consider any restriction on freedom harmful, in which case the Government must constantly consider the degree of harm necessary to justify and outweigh the harm they will undoubtedly be causing by imposing restrictions on individual freedom. On this account of harm, we can conclude both that not only should the government only restrict an individual’s freedom in order to prevent harm to others, but also that the level of harm must be enough to outweigh the harm caused by a restriction of individual freedoms. For Mill, this would have been a very high threshold.
Thomas Szaz argues in favor that people should be allowed to take any drug they want without any restrictions. He thinks the fear that the government has that; people will neglect their responsibility and engage in smoking opium or heroine all day is just a fallacy.
Mill believed that social coercion was dangerous to the liberty of individuals because it forced them to conform to public opinions. Conforming to common opinions deprived the individual of intellectual development because people would live their lives based on the beliefs of others and not their own. This supports his rejection of social conformity because denying an individual the liberty to their own opinions and behavior is denying them from pursuing happiness. This idea led to his understanding that a person’s freedom and happiness depended on limiting the power of the state and society. For Mill, interference of one’s liberty is justified only if it causes harms to others. This idea is introduced as “the harm principle,” which intends to explain when the interference of an individual’s liberty to opinions, associations, or actions is accepted. It’s unacceptable to use the interest of an individual’s own good, as a reason to interfere with their freedom. Instead, Mill argued that the use power over an individual was useful because it serves a greater good. He introduces utilitarianism through his argument that, authorizing the use of power to prevent harm to others serves their best
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. He also states that if you are causing harm to yourself the government shall not involve themselves. Different forms of harm are applicable, such as physical harm, property damage and emotional harm. Mill also explains that harm, in whatever form to others, can be the result of an action or the result of inaction. Both of these are a violation to the harm principle and the government has the right to step in; it does not matter whether harm was caused by the result of your action or inaction to the situation. The harm principle’s purpose is to be able to only let government interfere with human society when one is causi...
130). And according to his harm principle, if freedom of speech is seen as harmful to society because it must be occurring at the wrong time and or place, what is considered harmful? Is harm “… restricted to real tangible damage of the type that can be measured or does ‘giving offence ’or‘causing distress’ count as harm” (Tebbit, 2005, p. 131) Although, Mill never really provided a clear definition of what is “harm” he does say “…he insists, in the long-term interests of society as a whole to encourage the flourishing of the individual. Society should refrain from using the law to repress either criticism or non-conformity, because individual freedom of expression and lifestyle, and the conflict that these engender, are the real sources of dynamic development in any society.” Mill, after being critique, seems to realize that the reason for law is to maintain a society that is organized and that no individual, after all really is able to do as they please in order to make themselves happy. When laws are created, it accepts morals that majority of the society abide to such as drinking and driving is illegal. Drinking alcohol could make an individual happy, but
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.
It is very difficult to achieve a systematic understanding of the nature of mortality, but as humans we still try to. In fact, since people believe that the point of life is to pursue truth, people have been studying ethics and morality to find a universally understood truth. So that all of mankind, can address themes and understand situations the same way. Even when the backgrounds and levels of experience are different among each individual person in the world. After reading chapter one of The Elements of Moral Philosophy by James Rachels and Stuart Rachels, and after debriefing the moral dilemma activity from ethics class, there is multiple of justifications for why studying morality and ethics is important. However, the three most important
Complete free exercise of will inhibits individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm onto 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. People are often blinded by the situation in which they are in and by their personal motives which drive them to act. Humans, by nature, have faults and vices that are potentially harmful. It is the responsibility of society to anticipate harm, whether to oneself or to others. Once dangerous patterns and habits are recognized it is imperative to anticipate and prevent injury from reoccurring. To allow any individual to be inflicted harm forces citizens to lose tr...