preview

What Is Mill's Argument Of Social Harm?

Better Essays
Open Document

It was not always believed that humans are innately endowed with a metaphysical privilege to certain actions and ownerships; ie natural rights. While the doctrine holds roots as far back as Classical Greece and great thinkers such as Aristotle. It was not until the advent of the Enlightenment, and the work of thinkers such as John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government that natural rights finally established itself a strong foothold in the ideals of Liberalism. In as much, I believe that there are few truer statements than that which was penned upon the founding document of my nation. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among …show more content…

In his first assumption, the Utility assumption, Mill asserts that “liberty can only be interfered with if it threatens bodily harm to another.” (Mill, On Liberty) However, there are many actions that cannot be labeled as “bodily harm” which nevertheless ought to be unlawful. A more appropriate standard is the principle of man’s natural rights. With the two requiring the most diligence to uphold in civil society being property, and the pursuit of happiness. In as much, Mill would not hold equivocal social harm to physical harm. However, I see social harm as an evil that could just be equally, if not more so detrimental to one’s pursuit of happiness. Examples of this may include defamation. For, ruining a man’s good name in society, could not be counted as “physical harm”. Nevertheless, a man engaging in defamation may induce enough social harm to significantly effect another man’s ability to pursue his own eudemonia. Other practices that may be counted as social harms that ought to be unlawful is the formation of monopolies that prevent other people from pursuing the labor of their choice, or discrimination among employers or places of education on the basis of gender, racial, or ethnic …show more content…

But in the end, there must exist a separation of the private and public life in society. I concur with Devlin that government not ought to impose full-blown morality, rather it ought to eliminate intolerable morality (Devlin, Lecture number 10). Furthermore, under a theory of a natural law, I believe there exists moral truths that prescribe principled and unwavering standards for morality, and that these standards ought to be made law. As Thomas Aquinas claimed, “an unjust law is no law at all” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica). Hence, government ought to enforce morality based on principles and standards of morality that no logical argument could be made against, such as the immorality of slavery. Not the idea of collective morality derived from the general will that Devlin subscribes too. However, I will admit that not all moral questions are as clear of moral questions as that of slavery, or murder. In such cases, man with his ability to reason is the appropriate authority. For regardless, morality is often a private matter and privacy as Devlin ironically claims ought to be respected. Thus, preserving the separation of the public and private life. Moreover, this fits well with Mill’s third assumption, the Autonomy assumption, which asserts the importance of the freedom of choice (Mill, On Liberty). As well, to a degree, his general assumption. Upon this, I would assert in congruence

Get Access
Related
Get Access