What is harm?

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.

Mill has an “eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” standpoint. If a person commits a terrible crime, they are nowhere near reaching a desirable end, nor do they have capacity to be virtuous, as Aristotle would say. If somebody is guilty of murder, then life in jail is too mild of a punishment for the crime he committed. It goes the other way around too. If somebody is guilty of theft, then life in jail may be too hard of a punishment for that particular crime. Mill believes the only efficient punishment is one that is exactly equal to the crime. He doesn’t think a murderer should be allowed to live on with the potential to murder again. Another thing Mill focuses on is general responses among a society. He believes the only way to find desirable pleasure is to ask people and get a general response. So if you asked the family of a murder victim what they would like to see happen to the murderer, a probable general response would be to have him sentenced to death as well, and that is exactly what should happen.

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.

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.

While Mill is clear that offence is not sufficient to be considered 'harm', he does seek to ban some things which may merely be offensive such as public indecency. He doesn't give explicit examples in this instance, merely that there are some things which are acceptable in private, but when performed in public go against the general concept of 'good manners'.

First, Mill pointed out that everyone has their own judgments and no one has the right to decide an issue for all people. The liberty of an opinion is often up for debate because we are all confident in our own rightness, even though that confidence is not justified. “They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” (Mill, II.3). Mill pointed out that silencing a potentially true idea hurts society because it is shielded from that possible truth. You never can

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

He presumed that people had enough knowledge and discernment to make moral choices that they could live with. The individual and their personal reflection of right or wrong decided their moral standards. Mill also noted that people had a desire to be accepted by society and they have a fear of being disapproved. Mill believed government should intervene only when one individual may hurt another. People have the freedom to hold and express their own opinions, which would deny the government the ability to choose a majority over a minority. In this government their authority would be limited in its ability to intervene unless an individual was harming another.

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.

Before Mill could analyse the concepts of Utilitarianism his first action was to break down any barriers that caused people to turn away from its insights. All actions exist as a means to promote a particular end; thus an action may only be deemed right or wrong based on the desired outcome of said action. If the sought out ends cause suffering towards others, the actions will be considered to have been bad; just the same as if an end causes happiness, the actions that caused this result will be deemed as good. Therefore, having a standard as to how humans can be judged between good and bad is necessary. Mill argues that “particular truth precedes general theory” (p. 2), unlike the rules of applicable sciences we know of, ethics demands ‘general laws’ in order for

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.

Inhibition of one's liberty, such as their liberty of conscience (i.e. freedom of speech), is unjust by Millian principles, unless the person's use of deliberation is to voice hate speech. So what is hate speech? Hate speech is directed towards a member of a group, or the group as a whole, that vilifies on the basis of the subject's beliefs. In comparison to discriminatory speech, hate speech does not invoke mere offense, but in most cases is traumatic, and severely impair one’s deliberative capacities, or their mental faculties (judgment, moral preference, intuition, etc…). Liberties have been established to protect our deliberative abilities, as these are conducive to achieving happiness, which to Mill is the individual's primary goal. So why should we regulate hate speech? Although it is important to allow people's freedom of expression, as this is conducive to promoting one's individuality, hate speech can stigmatize one's character, and for this reason hate speech is not always morally, or legally permissible. To better understand hate speech's importance, I will describe Mill's argument in favor of prohibiting hate speech, following this I will object to Mill's rejection of hate speech, finally, I will show why hate speech should be regulated, and why allowing it is dangerous to humans, and society as a whole. Freedom of expression is imperative for improving one’s character, but not all forms of opinions', such as hate speech, should have full freedom to be

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

Additionally, Mill also advocates for free speech on the grounds of an individuals safety, more in depth, the physical and emotional safety of a citizen. “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,8) Here, it is obvious that Mill advocates free speech as long as it doesn't hamper another being. Furthermore, Mill also justifies his belief in free speech on the grounds of ones mental well being stating “necessity to the mental well being of mankind of freedom of opinion.( Mill,43) It is apparent that Mill asserts freedom of speech is acknowledged on the basis of an individuals safety, both physical and mental.