John Stuart Mill The Harm Principle

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873) is recognised as one of the most prolific thinkers of the nineteenth century, whose liberal political philosophy has influenced intellectuals and political theorists for decades (Feinberg, 1986). At the same time, Mill's utilitarian approach to society at large reveals sensibilities and moral considerations that enhance his liberal attitudes in the most surprising ways. According to Losurdo (2011), it is widely believed that Mill is one of the greatest opponents of paternalism, supporting individuals' liberty and autonomy. However, Mill is also accused of overt sentiment, ignorance of natural rights, or a diversion from original conceptions of Utilitarianism. As a result, this essay is concerned with his conception of individuality, as discussed in his On Liberty (1859), investigating how this notion, based on individual liberty and autonomy, opposes social control and paternalistic policies.

Mill claims that his purpose in writing on liberty is to assert what he describes one very simple principle. The principle that ought to govern society and that principle has come to be known as the harm principle. The individuals own good either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant for societal intervention. The individual cannot rightfully be compelled to do or not to do because it will be better for him to do so because it is better for him to do so because it will make him happier.

Thesis Statement: Marijuana has been regarded as a harmful plant that can endanger lives and is thought to be nothing more than an extra problem to be dealt with in today’s society. However, based on its economic value and medical benefits, the cannabis has proven to outweigh its negatives with numerous other positives.

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.

This paper will discuss John Stuart Mill’s argument about the freedom of expression of opinion, and how Mill justified that freedom. I will also discuss how strong his argument was and whether or not I agree with it. John Stuart Mill was a political economist, civil servant, and most importantly an English philosopher from the nineteenth century. Throughout his writing, John Stuart Mill touched on the issues of liberty, freedom and other human rights. In his philosophical work, On Liberty, he discussed the relationship between authority and liberty, as well as the importance of individuality in society. In chapter two of On Liberty, Mill examined the freedom of expression in more detail, examining arguments for and against his own.

Mill claimed that there must be unconditional rejection of paternalism by the state, only invalidated to prevent persons from selling themselves into slavery. Reinforcing his case Mill argued that paternalistic intervention is unlikely to work because an individual is acutely more aware of his or her own needs than the state is. Additionally, he argued that it is improbable compulsion would work. This can also be taken into account in the form of liberty. Mill alleges that an autonomous life has more value than a life of dependency, since one cannot be forced to be autonomous paternalism has a damaging effect on an individual. As a contemporarily relevant issue, Devlin indirectly delivers his rebuttal to paternalism by embodying a stance on homosexuality. He defends societies right to protect its own existence by vetoing behavior that threatens its sustainability, since homosexuality is detrimental to society that union has a right to prohibit it. This is consistent with Devlin's definition of "tangible harm", described as a harm that instigates a diminution of the physical strength of society. When practiced in trivial quantities these activities can be harmless, however as its participants

Mill’s belief promotes that each individual’s opinion is important and therefore should be listened to by the government. The government would not be able to turn a blind eye to a minority; this is one of many influences on classical liberalism. In classical liberalism the government has limited say in the economy and ensures that everyone has the right to his or her freedom of opinion. An

In this essay I will assess and evaluate Mill’s concept of justice through the principles of utility. I will argue to defend Mill’s attempt to reconcile justice with the utilitarian principles he has explained by first summarizing these concepts and by proving utility.

Living in the 21st Century, a majority of the laws and regulations that guide our daily lives have already been legitimized and written decades ago. Although a large portion of these laws still exist today, there is always need to revise and rewrite laws. In this article I will talk about the myths and beliefs of marijuana and compare them to reliable sources to form an opinion on whether or not marijuana is a relatively safe drug for medical and recreational use along with the physical and social effects to the user and their environment. Regard, this paper will not focus on any other associated topics such as the price of prisons, annual marijuana dispensary revenue, drug trafficking or law policy’s. However many of the used articles compare and contrast the use of alcohol to cannabis.

Freedom is a necessary principle to abide by in order for the human race to function. On the other hand, freedom can be taken advantage of, thus resulting in harmful consequences to those directly and indirectly involved. The article, “On Liberty” by John S. Mills, places emphasis on the functioning of individual liberty and its co-existence with society. Mills stresses the limits of individual liberty through what is famously known as his Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power may 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" (Cahn). With special consideration placed on drug use and free

Mill is extremely clear as to why the individual should be sovereign over his or her body and mind—to counter the effects of a possible "tyranny of the majority." Mill states, "It (the majority) practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself" (63).

The aim of this paper is to clearly depict how John Stuart Mill’s belief to do good for all is more appropriate for our society than Immanuel Kant’s principle that it is better to do what's morally just. I will explain why Mill’s theory served as a better guide to moral behavior and differentiate between the rights and responsibilities of human beings to themselves and society.

I will be explaining John Stuart Mill’s view on ethics. This includes explaining the “Greatest Happiness Principle”, happiness, unhappiness, quality of pleasure, lying, and the relevance of time with his view. I will then explain how I agree with the principle of Rule Utilitarianism. I will also consider the objection of conflicting rules in Rule Utilitarianism as well as that of negative responsibility, giving my response to each.

My main disagreement with Mill’s Harm Principle is that indirect harm does not apply. Mill writes, “In many cases, an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had a reasonable hope of obtaining (1009).” Who is he to say that while pursuing an object pain or loss is necessary at all? The definition of necessary, according to Webster’s Dictionary, is absolutely essential or needed to achieve a certain result or affect. I do not think that in any way it would be necessary to cause harm while trying to achieve a goal. There are so many ways to go about to achieve a goal without causing harm to someone. However, if for example, you and a coworker are in position for a promotion, you are both fighting against each other for the position, you receive the promotion and unintentionally hurt the other worker, and this harm caused does not put you at fault. If you did something evil or something that would purposely cause the individual to not get the promotion this is intentional and you should be placed at fault. In summary Mill believes that consequential harm will not apply to the harm principle; however I believe that the circumstances of the situation are very important in be able to consider whether or

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.