John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle Essay

Mankind has been fighting for Liberty and Freedom for as long as we can remember. Liberty and freedom has been a topic which has been debated for many decades. What does it mean to be free , and how far can we go to strive for freedom. These important questions have been answered and studied by two of the greatest English philosophers, John Locke and John Stuart Mill. Locke and Mill men will attempt to uncover the mysteries of Liberty and Freedom and unveil the importance of being free. This essay will look at John Locke’s principle works” Second Treatise of government” and John Stuart Mills. “ On Liberty and Other Essays”. This essay will attempt to compare and contrast Lockes ideology on Liberty and Freedom to that of Mill.

One principal proclaimed by anti-paternalist writer J.S Mill, “is that 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. 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.” In Mill’s proclamation, not one simple principle is being emphasized, but rather a few intricate opinions regarding an individual’s own good. He is asserting that self-protection or the prevention of harm to others is sometimes sufficient and that someone’s own good is never a sufficient authorization for the exercise of domination.

Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human

I don't believe so. I must begin my argument with two definitions and one assumption. First, Rule Utilitarianism states that right action is defined by whether or not a given action is an instance of a moral rule that tends to maximize utility. Second, Act Utilitarianism states that right action is defined by whether or not a given action maximizes utility. Finally, the Utilitarian Principle holds that right actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. I hope that my assumption will be granted as it is taken verbatim from the text. With these notions as a starting point I believe that I can now show Mill to be an

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.

     The problems with Mill being a rule-utilitarian begin to arise when we examine its method. When, in the statement of the Utilitarian Principle, Mill says that right actions tend to promote happiness, some have taken that to mean that Mill must only be dealing with classes of action. If this were the case, then an instance of a right action class, if in the wrong (of any infinitely complex) set of circumstances, may fail to maximize happiness but still be right.

How do we apply aged philosophies to present day problems? Like his forefather John Stuart Mill, modern thinker Peter Singer approaches moral philosophy from a utilitarian perspective. In this paper, I will argue that Singer’s and Mill’s utilitarian philosophies share numerous similarities but also differ. Singer and Mill agree that selflessness can end human suffering. In addition, their views concerning the significance of consequences align; however, they conflict on the relevance of motivation. I contend that Singer improves upon Mill’s utilitarianism by accurately recognizing the discrepancy between absolute affluence and absolute poverty and also by considering the intricate concept of motive.

In regards to morality, Mill anchors its definition on the premises of the greatest happiness principle stated above. Unlike Aristotle who puts emphasis on the agent (the person themselves) in regards to acting morally, Mill is very indifferent and states that the character of the person and their motives do not matter only the consequence of those actions matter. For Mill, the morality of the action only depends on whether that action will produce pleasure for greatest number of people. As state before, he explains that pleasure leads to happiness, and happiness is the ultimate goal of each individual. However, morality is “the rules and precepts for human conduct,” and not simply the causes of human behavior. Desire may drive human actions, but that doesn’t mean that desire should propel human actions. Morality is the ideal, not the reality.

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 wastes no time in articulating the central thesis of On Liberty; he states, "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign" (69). Mill, then, does not make the individual more important than society, but he separates the individual from society and articulates a realm of existence in which society, or the community, should have no power over the individual. 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…His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (68). Society, therefore, has no right to intervene in the private life of any person, unless they act in such a way that prevents others from enjoying their own rights.

Mill uses the Harm Principle to identify his argument for freedom of speech. The Harm Principle explains that the government are only justified in interfering with individuals who express their views if only their views cause harm to others. If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. Three ideas helped shape the harm principle. The first idea, Mill states that the harm principle is composed of the liberty of expressing and publishing opinions as being important as the liberty of thought, which

John Stuart Mill, in his Utilitarianism, turns morality into a practical problem. His moral theory is designed to help one evaluate his moral principles and senisibilites and be able to ajudicate conflictions in moral conflicts. Mill postulates that actions are right so far as they tend to promote happiness and minimize pain. This theory manifests itself as an impartial promotion of happiness. Morally "right" actions are ones which promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number number of people and reduce pain. Utilitarian moral theories need to be coupled with theories of well-being, so that we can point to what is being maximized through the moral theory's operation. Mill's moral theory is

John Locke (1632-1704) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) are two important thinkers of liberty in modern political thought. They have revolutionized the idea of human freedom at their time and have influenced many political thinkers afterwards. Although their important book on human freedom, John Locke’s The Second Treatise of Government (1689) and John Mill’s On Liberty (1859), are separated 170 years, some scholars thinks that they are belonging to the same conceptual tradition, English Liberalism. In this essay, I will elaborate John Locke and John Stuart Mill view on human freedom and try to find the difference between their concept of human freedom despite their similar liberal tradition background.

Also noted by Mill, dating back to centuries ago the minority was heavily protected by the authority. the stronger. “To prevent the weaker members of the community from being preyed upon by innumerable vultures, it was needful that there should be an animal of prey stronger that the rest” ( Mill, 2) With that said, Mill’s essay speaks strongly on “demanding liberty of conscience in the most comprehensive sense, liberty of thought and feeling, absolute freedom on opinion and sentiment on all subjects, practical, or speculative, scientific, moral or theological” (Mill 71) believing that we have the freedom to direct our own destiny.