What is harm?

1801 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: J s mills notion liberty essay

In On Liberty, Mill presents and argues “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. ” (9). Society has the right to use the law to regulate the conduct that consists in of “ injuring the interest of one another, or rather certain interest which, either by express legal provision or tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights’ (chp 4; 73). Society may use public opinion to monitor conduct that “may be hurtful to others or wanting in due consideration for their welfare, without going to the length of violating any of their constituted rights’ (chp 4; 73). Needless to say that, “as soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interest of others, society has jurisdiction over it” (chp 4; 73). Mill obviously is implying that harming someone means injuring his or her interests. Everyone has interests they consider important and ought to be protected by law as rights. Being that Mill is a utilitarian, utility imposes that it is the “permanent interest of man as a progressive being” (10) that should be protected by law. Unfortunately, morality and immorality play a roll within the harm principle; many actions may be interpreted as immoral harming others interest but not being protected by rights.

Those, however, who want to start or continue harming themselves it will be judged to society’s likings. According to the harm principle, we should not force upon someone to stop harming him or herself. The thought might sound cynical but it’s just that we don’t coerce them. Society shouldn’t make use of the law or moral condemnation to make adjustments to someone’s behavior, unless the person causing he ...

... middle of paper ...

...ents within themselves as well. The definition protects in harming others by being a bad example, they are very unlikely to violate anyone’s rights, specific duties to the public or harm anyone in particular. Mill doesn’t believe that harm caused by being a “bad example” if it’s not harming the person the actions are not “bad”. On a lighter note, the actions that has harmful consequences for the person will teach them a lesson, which for Mill it’s a lesson well learned. My definition may still have some tweaks for the immorality of things but the first part of it, harm is anything that violates others and one’s rights is harm can apply with more affect in society because everyone has a different opinion on what is immoral or moral and to extents. The immoral part of the definition will need to start with oneself to help society determine what the people agree on.

Show More
Related

  • Affirmative Action Case Study

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism and Morality in John Stuart Mill´s Essay

    1012 Words  | 3 Pages

    For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.

    Read More

  • Social Harm And Criminology Essay

    986 Words  | 2 Pages

    This essay sets out some of the advantages and disadvantages of the concept of 'social harm' hold for the criminologist over that of 'crime'.

    Read More

  • Respected Philosopher, John Stuart Mill, Author of On Liberty

    803 Words  | 2 Pages

    The harm principle states that all individuals have the free will to carry through any action they desire to make, as long as it does not hamper or effect the rights of others. Mill has arguments, although inconclusive to many, that support his position.

    Read More

  • Public Education Revealed In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

    762 Words  | 2 Pages

    In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill speaks on matters concerning the “struggle between authority and liberty” and determining how the government should be balanced with the will of the common people. To aid these balances, Mill lays out indisputable freedoms for everyone including freedoms of thought and speech. He stresses that these freedoms are justified as long as they abstain from harm onto other people, but words have been known to hurt or offend. Hateful and unpopular thoughts can be ignored by common people just as they can say and believe whatever they wish to, but in the creation of laws that do affect everyone, leaders cannot discriminate against hearing any sort of opinion because doing so would increase the possibility of tyranny against a minority of any kind Mill wants to prevent. Every single opinion, no matter how unpopular, deserves to be heard by people of power, for even a thought of the unpopular or the minority could provide a shred of truth when leaders make decisions to better a majority of lives.

    Read More

  • Categorical Imperative Theory: The Ideas Of Kant's Thought And Theory

    1053 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism’s purpose, according to Mill, is to make what the individual subconsciously desires and make that desire a reality. If an individual doesn’t know what options he or she has, they don’t have the capacity to make the best decision. Mill emphasizes this by relating happiness to the visibility of an object. If an object isn’t visible, then to most, the object doesn’t exist, as is the same with happiness. Mill’s argument sheds light on the individual more so than the group in his interpretation of Utilitarianism. As I stated previously, Mill doesn’t quantify his interpretation of Utilitarianism. Instead, concepts such as morality, are based internally as opposed to externally. Everyone has the potential to decide for themselves whether their actions are moral or not. Through doing this, Mill addressed most of the criticisms toward Utilitarianism. However, Kant’s Categorical Imperative acts more as a decision rule for action instead of universal

    Read More

  • Liberty And Paternalism

    1660 Words  | 4 Pages

    John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks Mill’s argument down into two distinct types, one based on utilitarianism and one based on the absolute value of free choice.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism

    715 Words  | 2 Pages

    In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism In John Stuart Mill

    1161 Words  | 3 Pages

    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.

    Read More

  • Stuart Mill Paternalism

    1093 Words  | 3 Pages

    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

    Read More

  • An Analysis Of Jeremy Bentham's 'Anarchical Fallacies'

    2138 Words  | 5 Pages

    Mill’s convincing argument explains the context that natural rights are nonsense when they do not have legal protection and the hierarchal morality innately exists in mankind. Together Mill accounts for the legal and morality of natural rights.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.

    Read More

  • Jeremy Bentham : Father of Utilitarianism

    1451 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism is a reality, not just a theory like many other philosophies; it is practiced every day, for instance the vote system. This ongoing practice of utilitarianism in society has show that it is flawed. Just because the masses vote for something, doesn’t make it right. The masses can be fooled, as in Nazi Germany for example, thousands of people were behind Hitler even though his actions were undeniably evil. Utilitarianism is a logical system, but it requires some sort of basic, firm rules to prevent such gross injustices, violations of human rights, and just obviously wrong thing ever being allowed. This could be the ‘harm principle’ which Mill devised.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    My thoughts and feelings on Mill vary, but I’d like to share my negative opinion towards the principle and hope to put it in a different perspective. 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.

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty"

    1403 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this instance, Mill would agree with the court ruling because, like his views concerning free exercise of will, government restriction and majority rule, both the court ruling and Mill’s ideals are concerned for the best interests of the individual rather than for the greater good of society. Complete free exercise will inhibit individual and societal freedom. According to Mill, one may act as one chooses unless one is inflicting harm on 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.

    Read More

More about What is harm?

Open Document