The Argument For The Legalization Of Marijuana In The United States?

The exclusive meaning of 'harm' In Mill's liberal view, individuality and liberty are sovereign rights of all citizens. However, in chapter four of On Liberty, 'On the limits to the authority of society over the individual', the philosopher acknowledges one instance in which the state regulatory system should be employed, in order to 'prevent harm to others' (Mill, [1859] 2009, p.19). This perspective is called the 'harm principle', serving as a singular indicator of a need for a governmental control and a potential interference. This principle distinguishes private acts of individual selves, and acts that affect others.

In the Harm Principle Mill suggests that the actions of individuals should be limited to prevent the harm of others . An individual may do whatever he or she wants, as long as these actions do not harm others. Mill believes in an individual’s autonomy; being self governed. We can live as we wish, and therefor also die as and when we wish. As Mill says: “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.

In his book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill provides an ideology that justifies the interference of one’s civil liberties which then became known as the “Harm Principle.” In short, it implies that a person may do whatever he/she pleases as long as that action causes no harm to anyone else, and if it does, his/her civil liberties can be interfered with to prevent harm. One of the harm principle’s biggest appeals is that it ensures one’s individual choices that affect no one else, must be respected. One of the harm principle’s drawbacks is that it only interferes with civil liberties when you or other people are at risk of being harmed against their will. For example, smoking and the pleasure that person finds from smoking is usually a personal

If an individual’s actions cause another individual harm, then he argues that it is legitimate for the state to limit the freedom of the individual who is causing the harm. Mill believes that an individual has individual freedom and is allowed to do whatever he wishes or pleases as long as he does not harm anyone in the process. If a person wishes to induce harm to himself, he should be able to do so as long as his actions do not cause harm for other members of the society. Similarly, if a person wants to go out and dress eccentric, he should be able to do so as long as his action does not harm other people.

Finally, I will advance an argument as to how Mill’s principle of utility might be better supported by government intervention; or rather, how government interference is necessary for freedom of thought and expression to increase utility (in the way Mill claims). To begin with, Mill’s principle of utility is that we ought to judge actions and decisions based the utility which we gain from their consequences. In other words, if an action’s consequences increase utility, then it is ethically the ‘right’ action to take; similarly, if an action’s consequences decrease utility, then that action can be judged as ‘bad.’

Mill states, “It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (Mill 20). In order to determine if something is ethical or not, it must follow his Utilitarianism foundation. In addition, individual liberties are related to this foundation because they were asked if these liberties were right and ethnical moral.

The question of man's individual freedom and liberty weighing against the dictates of rulers has steadily endured in discussion since the Age of Enlightenment, and while many Western philosophers have pondered the limits of this question, this issue remains hotly debated even today. This age-old question of how to properly balance man's rights to liberty with his obedience under authority has persisted since ancient times1. Those who have probed these ideas have laid the foundations for liberalism as an ideal. The main argument of the liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill's On Liberty is of the need for individuals to have a proper balance of liberties and freedoms in life juxtaposed with deference and respect for laws and institutions in place. Mill was correct in his assertions that liberty and freedoms for the individual would be the driving force in countering the stagnation of society.

Whereas John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle proffers a judicious moral schema for the regulation of societal intervention regarding individual liberty, it fails as an unequivocal method of establishing the limits of political authority within a civilised society. The aforementioned principle dictates “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection”. This principle advocates strongly for a protection of individual freedoms essential to the advancement of a society and though insufficient on its own, it must be given proper consideration concerning limits. the principle is flawed as it operates on the invalid assumption that there

Opponents argue that harms cannot be effectively reduced by decriminalization, on the contrary, the harms linked with consumption of such substances will be increased. The arguments of the critics are more substantial and logical when compared with the advocates of decriminalization of drugs. Because use of drugs is damaging for communities and users alike. The opponents present huge financial, social and personal costs that are associated with the consumption of drugs as evidence to rationalize their prohibitionist position.

The prohibition of drugs has been practiced in the United States since President Nixon’s administration; however, does it really maximize utility of the United States’ citizens? If so, it should continue to be practiced with force, but if not, it is time to end the war on drugs once and for all. Even though some consider it not to be a victimless crime, prohibition of drugs does not maximize utility because the war on drugs has flooded United States’ prisons with inmates who have not committed violent crimes, we have no right to keep someone from their lifestyle choice of doing drugs, and it is giving rise to the cartel monopoly. Utilitarianism is a moral theory established by John Stuart Mill that says we should seek not the individual’s

Throughout Mill’s argument within On Liberty, he asserts that society has too much power over an individual’s actions due to social forces and laws. In response to this, the main takeaway is that every person has their individual right to their liberty. Everyone should be able to act freely and to their heart’s contents, but to a certain extent, with that extent being that one cannot harm another person as they embark on their path to happiness. While harm can most obviously mean physical or verbal harm, Mill extends the definition to the abstract. When someone is prohibiting someone from their interests, that is also considered harm.

Despite the fact, critics assert, that Mill’s theory of liberty is much more individualistic, he like Aristotle is not ignorant of the fact that the “human being is by nature a social or a political animal.” In this line of thought, Mill indicates that liberty is one of the issues which border much on the relationship that coexists among people in a society but it is seldom addressed. Interestingly, it is

This excerpt from John Stuart Mill’s essay, On Liberty, is concerned with his thoughts of Liberalism and how our free will should prevail in such a society. However, to understand the extract, we must understand what Liberalism is, it is essentially a “political movement…aimed at improving the welfare of all” and concerns the question of “the nature and limits of power which can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual” which Mill also seeks to answer. The extract engages immediately in explaining Mill’s Harm Principle, this is also the basis of his argument as it explains that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over a member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”. To understand under what circumstances our individual rights can be infringed upon, Mill explains that harm can be divided into two types; self-regarding and other regarding actions.

Mill states “the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection” (Mill, 1859). Therefore, an individual, or the state, must not attempt to control the actions of individuals, unless such actions are damaging to others. This allows individuals to do whatever they please, so long as it does not infringe anybody else’s freedom (Scarre, 2007). While Mill often bridges the gap between both modern and classical liberalism, this piece of philosophy is classical liberalism as it exemplifies negative

John Stuart Mill, a respected philosopher, laid out ideas in his time that resonate today. Among these are his principles regarding the limitations of liberty. These were given to us in his work On Liberty. Throughout the writing we are offered four different principles, being the Harm Principle, Legal Paternalism Principle, Offense Principle, and Legal Moralism. The first of these is different from the rest in that it allows the individual to live their lives to the fullest extent possible (within reason), more than the others, which all impose some sort of restriction, almost always set in place by a government.