The Harm Principle In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

In Defense of Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill In the excerpt from John Stuart Mill’s book, Utilitarianism, Mill defends the utilitarian theory against three different objections. The first, and strongest opposition to utilitarianism was the accusation that the emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure makes utilitarianism “a doctrine worthy of swine.” This was my favorite argument because Mill defended it so well stating that there are varying degrees of pleasure. He refers to them as “high” and “low” pleasures, which I do agree with.

One may say, “If I do something that’s only harming me, then society can’t step in and force me to do otherwise.” However, isn’t everything we do affecting other people in the society? For example, if a person were to not vaccinate his newborn and his newborn contracts a disease, it will affect others in society. In response, Mill would acknowledge that people are not fully isolated from society, and therefore the actions those people take will ultimately affect others and possibly do harm. However, he says, "But with regard to the merely contingent or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself, the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom” (Mill 80).

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.

Both the harm principle and legal paternalism are aimed at upholding an individual’s liberties within the law. However, they argue different view points and restrictions. The harm principle is chiefly concerned with upholding an individual’s right to somehow harm oneself, while legal paternalism says the law can interfere to prevent an individual from harming oneself. This is the most obvious distinction between the two philosophies. Dworkin’s argument for legal paternalism, however, uses Mill’s argument against him, and ultimately proves to be the stronger principle to justify law.

There is always contradiction on whether if people in the United States posses ro mich freedom or not. Although freedom is one of the most important rights citizens have, people continue to argue on this status. Moreover, people argue that our society should give the greatest amount of goods, even if it means less freedom, others argue that by restricting freedom human’s health can improve, however; when we allow individual behavior to endanger others, we’ve damaged both freedom and health. First of all, the greatest goods should be achieved for the greatest amount of people. For example, by people providing exemplary behavior, they can remain in liberty, and have a good life style.

Introduction: John Stuart Mill essay on Consideration On representative Government, is an argument for representative government. The ideal form of government in Mill's opinion. One of the more notable ideas Mill is that the business of government representatives is not to make legislation. Instead Mill suggests that representative bodies such as parliaments and senates are best suited to be places of public debate on the various opinions held by the population and to act as watchdogs of the professionals who create and administer laws and policy.

In the reading, "Utilitarianism," the author argues that happiness is the main criteria for morality since people base their actions off of the overall happiness it could promote (pp. 195 and 198) and that while actions differ in the quantity and quality of pleasure, pleasurable actions that require intellect are of the higher pleasures (pp. 196-197).   One of the author’s main reasons to support his view is that morality is determined by what increases or decreases the overall amount of utility (pp. 197). Mill denounces the view of utilitarianism as a selfish, unsympathetic ideology by stating that it could only be best used if everyone could promote utility, and he uses the Greatest Happiness Principle, in which he explains that actions

Mills believed that society had the right to limit freedoms of the individual to engage in behaviors that affected those not engaging in the behaviors. This idea is articulated later in “On Liberty” when mill 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.”

John Stuart Mill, at the very beginning of chapter 2 entitled “what is utilitarianism”. starts off by explaining to the readers what utility is, Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This leads us to another name for utility which is the greatest happiness principle. Mill claims that “actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” “By Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by happiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”.

Euthanasia itself means mercy killing and it’s the intentional ending of another’s life; either directly, which is known as active euthanasia, or by stopping medical treatment, known as inactive euthanasia. It can be voluntary, when the patient asks for it, and involuntary, when the patient isn’t able to express his request and the decision is then taken by the person’s doctor and legal representative. It is one of the biggest social, moral and ethical issues in today’s society, and for years it has caused a lot of controversies over whether it can be justified or not. Many believe that life is a “sacred gift from God” so it should be Him who decides when it’s our time to go; while many others argue that for matters that don’t concern anyone

The objections made against Mill’s Harm Principle do not succeed in objectifying the principle as an utter failure, thus the objections are valid reasons against the principle, and every individual is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation of principles such as Mill’s. The replies provided aid in showing that the Harm principle in not set in concrete, although Mill does provide his strong views on the topic of harm to others, this does not necessarily mean that every action that can possible be made by an individual is going to fit under the banner of what he deems as acceptable actions that do not cause ‘harm’ to others, and actions that he deems unacceptable because they will cause ‘harm’ and are immoral. Yes Lacewing is correct

Mill argued that as long as I am not harming anyone else, my “independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” While his take on utilitarianism was still questioned he also believed that we should maximize utility not case by case, but in the long run. With this practice in place, over time respecting individual liberties would lead to the greatest human happiness.

It is the latter which “concerns the interest of another person”. In other words, if the interests of another has been violated, harm has been dealt. It is under this threat - the ‘damage of interests’ - that Mill agrees with interference from the society in order to prevent this. This exemplifies liberal thinking in that he believes we are free to do whatever we liked, providing it is a self-regarding action and did not affect other people.

“On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill This reading has to do with political and social freedoms. In Chapter II, Mill reflects on whether people, either by themselves or through their tyrannical government, should be allowed to pressure anyone else’s point of view or opinion. He states that by doing so, it is basically unlawful. This is because if everyone were to agree on something but there just happens to be an odd man out, that one person would be silenced because the majority are agreeing so they’re the powerful group. But if that odd man out had the power, he would be justified in silencing mankind.

The book On Liberty, is one of philosophical and most famous work written by John Stuart Mill in 1859. In the book, J.S. Mill applies his utilitarian concept to the history and the state. There he attempts to exhibit the idea that the society advances from lower to higher places this advance comes full circle in the development of an arrangement of delegate democracy. This writing consists total of five chapters which consists of introduction, the liberty of thought and discussion, individuality, as one of the elements of well-being, the limits to the authority of society over the individual and multiple applications of the theory.