The law strives to preserve the order of society, while promoting morality and justice. Given that the law limits human autonomy through restriction, the question arises as to when and to what extent should a state limit the freedom of its citizens. In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill provides an answer to this question in the form of the harm principle: the sole reason for interfering with the liberty of an individual is to prevent the harm of others (Mill 1859). This principle states that law or moral condemnation should not be used to alter a person’s behaviour unless they are inflicting harm on other people without their consent. Although the harm principle attempts to protect an individual’s liberty, it evidently understates the legitimate
…show more content…
Actions that cause harm are a part of an extremely broad class of actions that do not necessarily constitute actions that should be regulated by society. Therefore, the function of law should not be limited to simply prevent the “non-consensual harm of others”. Legitimately, the law can also be used to prohibit behaviour that conflicts with the moral judgment of society as a whole, even when the harm of others is not a result of those behaviours. The weakness of the principle is evident when presented with consensual harms. Take the following scenario for instance: a man asks his friend to inject him with a syringe of heroin as he wishes to become addicted to these substances and the friend agrees and consensually executes the plan. Although this scenario does not involve non-consensual harm, a reasonable person would agree that this should not be ethically permitted, which effectively falsifies the harm …show more content…
Early in his life, Mill was exposed to an exceptionally demanding education that was, for the most part, shaped by utilitarian principles. In fact, his father, James Mill, raised him with the aspiration that he would become the ultimate Victorian intellectual and utilitarian reformer. Deeply rooted in his past is the reason for promoting the liberty of individuals to act as they please, granted they don’t cause harm: to encourage “utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (Mill, 1859). Thus, abiding by the harm principle is appealing as it would contribute to the development of humanity, according to Mill. His book “On Liberty” was written when Europe was living under the influence of the French Revolution and the spirit of representative democracy was spreading. Mill discovered that the coming of democracy made the power of the ruling class distinguishable from those of the citizens. Thus, he felt the need to define a state’s authority in order to prevent the law from unnecessarily infringing on the liberty of the people. Mill concludes that even if individuals are free to harm themselves, happiness is still maximized. His position regarding the law stems from his fear associated with the power of a government, the reason he believes in the promotion of goodness for the
Actions that cause harm are a part of an extremely broad class of actions that do not necessarily constitute actions that should be regulated by society. Therefore, the function of law should not be limited to simply prevent the “non-consensual harm of others”. Legitimately, the law can also be used to prohibit behaviour that conflicts with the moral judgment of society as a whole, even when the harm of others is not a result of those behaviours. The weakness of the principle is evident when presented with consensual harms. Take the following scenario for instance: a man asks his friend to inject him with a syringe of heroin as he wishes to become addicted to these substances and the friend agrees and consensually executes the plan. Although this scenario does not involve non-consensual harm, a reasonable person would agree that this should not be ethically permitted, which effectively falsifies the harm …show more content…
Early in his life, Mill was exposed to an exceptionally demanding education that was, for the most part, shaped by utilitarian principles. In fact, his father, James Mill, raised him with the aspiration that he would become the ultimate Victorian intellectual and utilitarian reformer. Deeply rooted in his past is the reason for promoting the liberty of individuals to act as they please, granted they don’t cause harm: to encourage “utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (Mill, 1859). Thus, abiding by the harm principle is appealing as it would contribute to the development of humanity, according to Mill. His book “On Liberty” was written when Europe was living under the influence of the French Revolution and the spirit of representative democracy was spreading. Mill discovered that the coming of democracy made the power of the ruling class distinguishable from those of the citizens. Thus, he felt the need to define a state’s authority in order to prevent the law from unnecessarily infringing on the liberty of the people. Mill concludes that even if individuals are free to harm themselves, happiness is still maximized. His position regarding the law stems from his fear associated with the power of a government, the reason he believes in the promotion of goodness for the