Mill's Harm Principle: Self-Protection & Liberty in Social & Political Philosophy, Lecture notes of Political Philosophy

Download Mill's Harm Principle: Self-Protection & Liberty in Social & Political Philosophy and more Lecture notes Political Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! Social & Political Philosophy Spring  Mill’s Harm Principle  e Principle “e object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as enti- tled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in theway of compulsion and control, whether themeans used be physi- cal force in the form of legal penalties, or themoral coercion of public opinion. at principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are eHarm Principlewarranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. at the only pur- pose for which power can be rightfully exercised over anymember 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. paternalism He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right.ese moralism are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him, must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. e only part of the conduct of any merely self- regarding actsone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns oth- ers. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” “ere are many who consider as an injury to themselves any con- duct which they have a distaste for, and resent it as an outrage to their feelings; as a religious bigot, when charged with disregarding the reli- gious feelings of others, has been known to retort that they disregard his feelings, by persisting in their abominable worship or creed. But Mill, On Liberty, ch. , par.  April  Mill’s Harm Principle  there is no parity between the feeling of a person for his own opinion, and the feeling of another who is offended at his holding it; no moreoffense than between the desire of a thief to take a purse, and the desire of the right owner to keep it. And a person’s taste is as much his own peculiar concern as his opinion or his purse.”  Which categories are most important? . Categories of behavior: purely self-regarding vs. harmful to others. . Categories of reasons for interference. a. Paternalism: protect the target of interference. b. Moralism: prevent behavior that is wrong, but not harmful. c. Repugnance: prevent offensive behavior. d. Harm principle: prevent harm to others.  Relationship to utilitarianism . According to Mill “I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. ose interests, I contend, authorize the subjection of individual spontaneity to external control, only in respect to those actions of each, which concern the interest of other people.” On Liberty ch. , par.  On Liberty ch. , par.  Social & Political Philosophy Spring   . Harm to self (paternalism) Restrictions that we would want if we were rational. E.g., those that save us from our own irrationality, seat belt requirements, anti-smoking laws, etc.. . Wrongs (moralism) “We do not call anythingwrong, unless wemean to imply that a person ought to be punished in some way or other for doing it; if not by law, by the opin- ion of his fellow creatures; if not by opinion, by the reproaches of his own conscience.” Gerald Dworkin, “Paternalism”, in Feinberg and Coleman, editors, Philosophy of Law. th edition (omson Wordsworth, ), pp. –. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, ch. , par. . For the general point, see Gerald Dworkin “Devlinwas right: Law and the enforcement ofmorality.”William&Mary LawReview, () :–.