What Is Mill's Harm Principle?

Words: 482

Pages: 2

Open Document

There was a principle that Mill introduced with respect to freedom of action of individuals. Mill presented the well known ‘harm principle’ as the only justified boundary of individual’s action. It states that the only action that should be prevented is the action that affects other’s interests. In other words, an individual can do whatever he wants, as long as his actions do not harm others. If those actions only influence him, then nobody including society and government can stop him from doing them. This principle is supported by a psychological theory that says human beings are social animals by nature (Newby-Clark 2010). Human beings need each other because basically, there is a necessity in each human being to interact with others. They rely on each other in running all aspects of life and at the same time, they affect others as well as being affected by others. …show more content…
Connecting Mill’s harm principle with the preceding theory, it implies that an individual should only do good actions such as virtue and generosity since those actions will bring pleasure to people around him, and avoid disgraceful actions since those actions will harm many people. Taking a case as an example, there were two German men vandalized a metro train in Singapore (Agence France-Presse 2015). They actually harmed people who directly or indirectly were associated with it, such as making the government had to hire someone to clean it up and disrupting the passengers’ comfort with an ugly looking train. Thus, the harm principle explicitly suggests that an individual is free to do anything and no one can limit it, as long as his actions do not harm others since the harmful effects will be encountered by many

John Stuart Mill Individuality

community members. Mill’s argument is not based in utilitarianism, but rather a liberal perspective that values freedom. Another contradiction is Mill’s assertion that the tendency of freedom of thought and discussion to beget truth means that freedom will have the best utilitarian consequences. This contention disagrees with the principle of utility because…

Words 1148 - Pages 5

Finding Truth In John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty argues that the retention of liberty by society is only justified when preventing harm to others. As long as a person’s actions do not result in harm to others, they have the right to retain full liberty in committing their actions. What Mill is imposing can result in a rather limited form of societal power; where people are not restricted in their speech or action, so long as their speech or actions do not violate another person's’ liberty. Moreover, what Mill considers…

Words 1560 - Pages 7

Philosophy 241 Lecture Note Essay

meta-ethics. Vocabulary: Normative vs descriptive statements: normative statements (or questions) are about what ought or ought not to be or be done or what would be good (or bad), etc. (for short, 'ought statements') descriptive statements (or questions) are about what is or is not the case (or might be, will, was, etc.), statements of fact; claims about what caused what are descriptive (for short, "'is' statements") "Everyone is self-interested" is a descriptive statement.…

Words 7807 - Pages 32

John Stuart Mill Research Paper

act? 2. Freedom of action: When can society legitimately interfere? 3. Liberty of Thought & Discussion: how much? Reasons? (3-1/2 reasons) 4. Individuality %%%%%%% Why study Mill? What does he add to Classical Liberalism? utilitarian value of liberty for individual, society; Why is individual liberty important? what is the social value of individual or eccentric opinions and actions, even when opinions are vile? Mill starts from a position of complete individual freedom; one must justify any…

Words 2655 - Pages 11

Essay on katie s midterm for philosophy

egoism Jeremy Bentham- Utilitarianism/ Greatest Happiness/Hedonistic Calculus John Stuart Mill- Utilitarianism/ Greatest Happiness Aristotle- Intellectual Virtue, Principle of the Mean, Moral Virtue, Teleology Immanuel Kant- Categorical Imparative/ Goodwill Epicurus- Ataraxia, Happiness, Epistemology John Rawls -The Two Principles of Justice Concepts Moral Philosophy (Also known as ETHICS)- is the study of morality using the methods of philosophy, and morality concerns beliefs about right and…

Words 2696 - Pages 11

Abortion Vs Abortion Essay

best tools to create a better life for themselves, by creating the life they want. This then, when the individual is striving to make the best life possible for themselves, it also betters the society and people around them. Liberty being a golden principle in the western world is no mistake, as many founding fathers of many countries most likely saw it as a system that could best shape and bolster their…

Words 960 - Pages 4

Freedom And Happiness

ot hurt others. Out of the theorists we have learned in this class so far, I believe my idea of freedom was close to Mill’s “Harm Principle,” though my ideas were not similar to all of Mill’s arguments. Up until this semester, western education and my fleeting practice of religion guided me to unquestioningly believe that all people are inherently good natured and only harm other people because of existential circumstances in their lives such as mental illnesses or unhealthy upbringing. Therefore…

Words 656 - Pages 3

Utilitarianism and Bentham Essay

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory which means that moral actions are evaluated by the consequences or outcomes of the action. The theory suggests that there is one rule/maxim that everyone should follow in order to determine what is right and wrong, i.e. the principle of ‘utility’ which suggests that everyone should do the most useful thing which serves the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is the belief that the right action is that which produces, or tends to produce, the greatest happiness…

Words 891 - Pages 4

Kant Vs. Mill-A Battle Of Ethics

who impacted modern ethics and morality forever. They each have two very different explanations for what they believe to be morally right or wrong. Kant’s view, simply put, is all people should not adjust what their “duty” is to mankind, no matter what may happen in the end, because it is morally just. Mill’s approach is that the consequences of one’s actions should be the determining factor in what you do. Like in most debates, both arguments have valid and strong points, however, the utilitarian…

Words 1311 - Pages 6

John Stuart Mill's Banning Of Boxing

cause larger amounts of harm to the boxers would the state be justified in interfering and banning the boxing when all the sports fans and the boxers do not want it banned? No they are not. Under Mill’s logic it is clearly paternalistic and unjustifiable and even under Smiley, who has a broader view of paternalism, it is not even readily clear that it is not paternalistic. Does Mill see this as paternalistic and justifiable? Mill lays out the harm principle as a principle that guides whether state…

Words 1517 - Pages 7