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...
... middle of paper ...
... which fits into the discussion is the law of wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a seatbelt while in a car is a good way of possibly causing harm to yourself. And according to the Harm Principle this should be allowed because you, as the person in the car, are deciding if you are going to put on your seatbelt. If the car were to crash it would have been your decision to not wear the seatbelt, so how can this be a government law? Putting or not putting on a seatbelt should be your decision because technically you are not causing harm to others, just possibly to yourself. If putting on a seatbelt is a law, why is a law against suicide not established, is it not basically the same theory. Allowing people to cause harm to themselves even if allowed by the Harm Principle does not only hurt the person doing the harm but also others around him, even if it is unintentionally.
Need Writing Help?
Get feedback on grammar, clarity, concision and logic instantly.Check your paper »
- In a democratic society, it is generally considered the Government's role to promote morality and justice within its citizens and seek to restrict supposedly immoral and unjust acts. Thus if an act is to be considered immoral, it seems obvious to suggest that the government is justified in restricting it regardless of whether it is harmful to others. However, since everybody has a different understanding of morality and freedom, no Government could legitimately restrict an act on the basis of it being 'immoral'.... [tags: Harm Principle, John Stuart Mill]
1412 words (4 pages)
- The Harm Principle in the 21st Century I intend to reassess the main criticisms levelled against John Stuart Mill's, Harm Principle. I will argue that his Principle has, with the benefit of hindsight, had a positive rather than negative influence upon society and given a framework within which citizens can be free to accept or reject options. I will show that, On Liberty is as significant today as when it was first published. Mill's Harm Principle says that, other things being equal, we should be free from interference either by the state or an individual.... [tags: John Stuart Mills Harm Principle Essays]
3458 words (9.9 pages)
The Principle Of Utilitarianism And The Sole Justification For Government By John Stuart Mill 's Harm Principle
- == Harm Principle == My primary contention in this debate regards the idea of liberty to act based on our choices, as long as there 's no harm to anyone else. That 's why the government exists -- to enforce the law, a set of rules that ensure liberty. There 's no reason for the law to exist except to maximize benefit and to minimize harm. Government policy is decided on the basis of utilitarianism, and the sole justification for government is to allow people to gain pleasure if there 's no suffering.... [tags: Illegal drug trade, Prohibition, Drug]
1047 words (3 pages)
- Utilitarianism Many people agree on the fact that society needs to act with a sense of morality. However, there are differing opinions on how to go about this. One popular idea is that a person should always consider the greater good of society in order to be moral. This moral principle is known as utilitarianism. The end result of this theory is happiness for all, which appeals to many people, since happiness is typically a goal everyone can agree to strive towards. The following examines the approach of utilitarianism from the perspective of John Stuart Mils, as well as looks its strengths and weakness’s through a thought argument, to demonstrate how this is played out in society.... [tags: Utilitarianism, Morality, John Stuart Mill]
1005 words (2.9 pages)
- In this paper, I will define and explain Utilitarianism, then evaluate the proofs made to support it. In the nineteenth century, the philosophy of Utilitarianism was developed by John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism is the theory that man should judge everything in life based upon its ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. While Jeremy Bentham is acknowledged as the father of Utilitarianism, it was Mill who defended its structure through reason. He continually reasoned that because human beings are capable of achieving conscious thought, they are not simply satisfied by physical pleasures; humans desire to pleasure their minds as well.... [tags: Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham]
1037 words (3 pages)
- John Stuart Mill’s theory of Utilitarianism is a moral consequentialist view that maintains actions are good if they lead to happiness and bad if they lead to suffering. The same rationale can be applied to obstruction—whatever prevents suffering is morally good, and whatever prevents happiness is morally bad. It should be noted Mill characterizes happiness as “pleasure and the absence of pain” (104). He also puts forth that intellectual pleasures—such as the satisfaction that comes with finishing a paper, or having a successful long-term friendship—are better than the animalistic pleasures taken in eating or sex.... [tags: Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill, Suffering]
862 words (2.5 pages)
- “Absolute liberty is the absence of restraint; responsibility is restraint; therefore, the ideally free individual is responsible to himself” - Henry Brooks Adams. There has been great debate, past and present with regards to what constitutes as an individuals liberty. It has been subject to constant ridicule and examination due to violations of civil rights. Freedom, liberty, and independence are all important human rights represented within John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty. In his essay, Mill explores the two dimensions to liberty; individual and social.... [tags: John Stuart Mill, liberty, On Liberty, ]
2145 words (6.1 pages)
- Utilitarianism was first brought up along the nourishing of “The Greatest Happiness Principle” introduced by Jeremy Bentham and further developed by John Stuart Mill, who was a follower of Bentham (Sweet, 2013). Based upon its principle, Utilitarianism states that to be good is to generate the greatest possible amount of happiness for the greatest number. In contrast with rational egoism, Utilitarianism focuses more on maximizing the overall net happiness of the majority. When facing a decision to make, utilitarianism provide us the evaluations of actions taken based upon their consequences (Sweet, 2013).... [tags: utilitarianism, happiness principle, utilitarian]
525 words (1.5 pages)
- Topic 1 John Stuart Mill included various sets of principles under “the appropriate region of liberty.” Of these principles, Mill listed the first principle such that they are encompassed in one category. According to Mill, the first principle included, “the inward domain of consciousness; demanding liberty of conscience, in the most comprehensive sense; liberty of thought and feeling... or theological.” Within this principle, individuals have the right of picking whatsoever they desire and minting a liberty that affect themself.... [tags: political and philosophical analysis]
549 words (1.6 pages)
- John Stuart Mills John Stuart Mill was one of the most well regarded and widely renowned philosophers and economists in history. He was considered a philosophical genius by the age of 20, and was mainly taught only by his father. His father believed that he should be educated and be taught many different languages and philosophies to become a well-rounded individual. When he had to end his studies early in life because of a mental breakdown at the age of 20, he soon recovered and was something different than when he first studied.... [tags: Essays Papers]
562 words (1.6 pages)