Essay Exploring John Mill's Harm Principle

The consequences that follow the use of any drug are unfavorable. Although many individuals may see drug addiction as a mere lifestyle choice, it is a problem that many individuals suffer from and inevitably a growing issue that leaves major social and economic impacts.

“Drug policy regarding the control of the traditional illicit substances (opiates, cocaine, cannabis) is currently moving through upbeat times in almost all Western countries. Prohibition on the basis of repressive law enforcement not only seems to fail on a large scale, but also to create vast additional costs, problems, and harm for drug consumers, who often find themselves in extreme social, economic, and health conditions” (Fischer 1995: 389).

Many drug addicts do not have jobs or any legal means of generating income; they resolve to criminal activities such as theft, robbery, or aggressive panhandling. Due to the addictive nature of drugs, the user will be compelled to want more and more in order to continue feeling “normal”. It is what fuels their addiction and as a result, a lack of motivation to do anything other than obtaining more drugs. The drug addict’s family suffers from the effects of the drug addiction as well through emotional stress and psychological decay. Drug addicts also encourage illegal drug trafficking by helping fund criminal organizations. In fact, drug addicts are the reason why the billion dollar drug industry is as lucrative as it is. Without drug addicts, drug traffickers would have no customers or buyers to help generate income. Huge amounts of tax revenue is going towards the war on drugs which includes money going into police departments, border agencies, harm reduction programs, and anti-drug campaigns. The tax money being used to fight drugs could be used to better our education or health systems; instead it is being used to fund harm reduction programs such as Insite.

Mill’s harm principle of ““One should not interfere with other people’s lives unless those people are doing harm to others” (p.G3), is in other words, if a person do not cause harm to others, there is no reason to prevent his/her actions. Mill’s belives that an individual is the supreme sovereign of his/her own acts. Even when the decisions taken may be some harm upon him/her, the responsibility of these actions is only on the individual.

John Stuart Mill’s explanation of the harm principle is not as useful as once believed. Although the harm principle does in fact have some logic, it fails to set clear and concise borders regarding what denotes allowable hate speech. The harm principle essentially states that all speech, including hate speech, should be allowed. However, speech that causes a definable harm must be censored. For example, merely offensive speech is allowed; however, the context of the offensive speech in question is important in understanding when to apply Mill’s harm principle. The principle has some major flaws, as Mill does not take into consideration the numerous factors that must be examined before deciding whether or not to apply the principle, such as

Although some people argue for the legalization of drugs, addiction to these substances has caused a huge increase in violent crimes in the home, at school, and on the street. Many people do not understand why individuals become addicted to drugs or how drugs change the brain to create compulsive drug abuse. They mistakenly view drug abuse and addiction as strictly a social problem and may characterize those who take drugs as morally weak. One very common belief is that drug abusers should be able to just stop taking drugs if they are only willing to change their behavior. This is a false and uneducated belief. Drug abuse may start as a social problem or social escape but one the addiction has taken ahold of a person

Mills motivating goal in this work is the libertarian acceptance of minimal restriction to individual freedom, which must be realized for self-development. The betterment of civilized society in this way relies on the expression of individual liberty without infringing on any other who enjoys equal liberty. The cases where such harm is committed, in which the state and law must inevitably intervene, is is not to reduce the importance of the individual liberty owed to rational actors, but rather affirms that aside from cases where harm

Elaborating on the harm principle, Mill writes, “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” (111; emphasis mine). Mill, in other words, suggests that for the government to restrict the liberty of an individual for his or her action, that action has to directly bring “harm” to another person. In the context of free speech, because the harm principle requires that the action brings harm to another person, it provides a clearer basis in screening anti-draft and subversive speech over the “clear and present danger” standard. When deciding whether anti-draft speech is protected in Schenck, the Court introduces the “clear and present danger”

English philosopher John Stuart Mill is the author of the essay titled “On Liberty.” It is known as one of the classic texts on modern liberalism as well as been hugely influential in politics, even more than we might realize. He asks the question, “When can the government restrict your freedoms and when can they not?” His simple yet very famous answer is known as the “Harm Principle” which basically states that if your actions harms somebody else then the government has a legal and moral right to step in and intervene and quite possibly punish you for those actions. This being said, my stance with this principle is positive and I agree with certain points Mill is making throughout his essays. On the other hand,

Mill first writes about stopping crime. If someone sees someone preparing to commit a crime, the person may interfere to prevent the crime. Same thing could be said for someone attempting to cross a bridge that is not stable. Mill again explains how if drunkenness is used during some form of violence, that the offender should be punished. If it got worse, penalty would become severe. Mill goes on to write about the difference between the powers of a person and a state. A person can do anything in his or hers own concern, but not free to do the like for the act of others. A state is bound to have control over the person’s power, which allows the person to possess power over others. Towards the end of the chapter, Mill discusses the objections to government interference of when it is not involved in the infringement of liberty. They are split into three kinds. The first involves of things that are better done by individuals than by the government. The second is that the individual might not do it as well as the officers of the government, but that they still are better than the officers. The third objection is that every function that is added to the current government causes more hope and fear. Mill concludes with writing about bureaucracy in the government. For the most part, Mill went from subject to subject in a very fast pace for me. However, he does deliver some key points to his comments that he

The state justifies its authority in restricting individuals’ access to drugs through the liberty-limiting principle of paternalism. By paternalism I am referring to hard paternalism because information on drugs are made widely available so individual are aware of the harm. This essay will argue that the state is not justified in this paternalistic approach because paternalism is incompatible with personal autonomy and is significant to an individual’s freedom to act as they wish according to their values. The essay will regard drugs as drugs that are banned and criminalised in most political institutions such as marijuana and cocaine. I will appeal to the implications of accepting paternalism towards drugs on the subsequent action that must be taken towards other potential. This will highlight the incompatibility between personal autonomy and paternalism. In order to prove the significance of autonomy I will use the principles of Frankfurt and Dworkin. Then I will appeal to the ethics of utilitarianism due to the underlying consequential motive of paternalism to address counter argument by

The use of drugs is a controversial topic in society today. In general, addicts show a direct link between taking drugs and suffering from their effects. People abuse drugs for a wide variety of reasons. In most cases, the use of drugs will serve a type of purpose or will give some kind of reward. These reasons for use will differ with different kinds of drugs. Various reasons for using the substance can be pain relief, depression, anxiety and weariness, acceptance into a peer group, religion, and much more. Although reasons for using may vary for each individual, it is known by all that consequences of the abuse do exist. It is only further down the line when the effects of using can be seen.

John Stuart Mill discusses the conception of liberty in many ways. I’d like to focus of his ideas of the harm principle and a touch a little on his thoughts about the freedom of action. The harm principle and freedom on action are just two subtopics of Mill’s extensive thoughts about the conception on liberty. Not only do I plan to discuss and explain each of these parts on the conception of liberty, but I also plan to discuss my thoughts and feelings. I have a few disagreements with Mill on the harm principle; they will be stated and explained. 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.

My thesis is that recreational drugs are situation, both can be bad or good for a person depending on the type of drug and how it is used. This essay will discuss the negative aspects to promoting the utilization of illegal recreational drugs such as a rare disease, misunderstanding of the health risks, and social destructive activities that follow its use. On the other hand, this essay will discuss how legalizing these drugs would lower crime and influence of the drug lords who sell illicit pharmaceuticals, actually lessen the negative abuse of drugs, and lower the spread of diseases by promoting safe and cheaper access to safe recreational alternatives.

A central belief of the liberal atmosphere on which western legal systems are fundamentally based is that of negative freedom, to do as one wills, provided that it causes no harm to others. But a question which goes to the heart of the ethics of allowing total individual freedom with minimal intervention from society can be characterized like so; where to draw the line between freedom and condemnation?  When is interference with individuals and their private morality justified? The harm principle, which seeks to introduce personal liberty and its coexistence with society, appears in John Stuart Mill's “On Liberty”, first published in 1859. However, the idea is not black and white - the harm principle can be criticized for its excessive paternalism, lack of clarity, and incomplete handling of certain situations. In this essay, I will argue that Mill thoroughly justifies his theory for the harm principle. To make this argument, I will examine the harm principle, evaluate possible counterarguments, then apply the Harm Principle to a real-life scenario.