The Harm Principle In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

Both men say that is wrong for the people to judge their rulers. Hobbes’ disapproval comes from his understanding of the nature of the relationship between sovereign and subjects. For him it would be wrong because the sovereign, having been given the assignment to keep peace, must be given also the means. Judging the sovereign would come to close too denying the sovereign the means to do his job and bringing the commonwealth back towards the state of nature.

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

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’，because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual."

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.

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.

John Stuart Mill was a liberalist British philosopher in the 19th Century. One of his most famous concepts, the ‘harm principle’ is articulated within his essay On Liberty (Mill, 1859) where Mill discussed the level of control which society has over the actions of the individual. This principle is in defence of the autonomy of the individual, as Mill states that “over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign,” (Mill, 1859: p.7) and this is one of his core beliefs. Mill wrote: ‘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.’ (Mill, 1859, p. 6).

Hobbes then proceeds to his next section, describing how humans were averse to being killed in the state of nature (13). For instance, they agreed to “lay down this right to all things” and give up their right to kill another person to ensure that they do not face a greater aversion, being killed (14). In the end, they were still looking out for their self-interest. Although they had lesser rights, they could now participate in a safer society.

As stated earlier, Hobbes argues that competition, diffidence, and glory are primary causes of conflict (Wootton, 2008). Diffidence for the sake of safety and glory for reputation can be mediated through the assurance game and lead to cooperation. This paper will first examine diffidence, followed by glory, as these two traits are the most pertinent principals in relation to cooperation. Firstly, in Hobbes’ state of nature, individuals are free to act however they see fit to preserve their lives (Wootton, 2008). As such, this would entail killing other in order to ensure their own safety.

Our liberty requires that they are restrained from encroaching upon our freedom, and in turn their liberty requires that they are safeguarded from us”. Although the individual may be sovereign over his or her body and mind, each must respect the fact that every other individual enjoys an equal right to liberty. This has been expressed by the modern liberal John Rawls (see p. 62) in the principle that everyone is entitled to the widest possible liberty. (Heywood 2003).

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.

The argument that finds a flaw in Hobbes’s claim considers the possibility that sovereign judgement of good and evil may fail in providing good to the public, in contradiction with the fact that people renounce their rights for their security.

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.

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.

Mill in ‘On Liberty’ stated the Harm Principle as, "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.”