Similarly, in an early essay in 1973 entitled Moral Enforcement and the Harm Principle-an essay which would sketch the contours of his later four-volume treatise on The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law-Professor Joel Feinberg rehearsed Mill's harm principle and he, too, pared the principle down to its original, simple formulation
If we count mere hurt, offence, annoyance, and mental distress as harms, the principle will countenance political interference with nearly every activity, and liberty will amount to naught. On the other hand, if we count only physical damage to persons as harm, most every activity will be permitted and there will be little scope for the political protection of persons. (Kernohan, 1993, 2-5) Certain harms, however, had an interesting structure which straddles these extremes; sometimes activities which, individually, are merely annoying, innocuous, or even beneficial add up to doing physical damage or severe harm. Following Feinberg, R.V Brown call these "accumulative harms," and argue that, even on a stringent conception of harm. Mill's harm principle should be interpreted as requiring political interference to prevent them.
There is a related ambiguity in the interpretation of the harm principle. Should the principle offer protection against harms or only against harmful conduct Harmful conduct is activity done either maliciously or recklessly that causes harm to others. (Kernohan, 1993, 2-5) The harmful conduct interpretation fits most naturally with the background, individualist assumption of our legal system regarding the assignment of blame and responsibility to individuals. Harms must be assigned to individuals in order for legal mechanisms of guilt and liability to work1. Hence individual harmful conduct must be identified in order to use the harm principle. Harms, though, are setbacks to people's interests whether or not brought about by harmful conduct. All harmful conduct, by definition, results in harm, and, most often, harms result from harmful conduct. But these two notions come apart in the prevention of accumulative harms. An accumulative harm is a harm done by a group, not to a group. It is a harm to another person brought about by the actions of a group of people where the action of no single member of that group is sufficient, by itself, to cause the harm. Most often, an accumulative harm will also be a public harm, a harm which cannot be done to one individual without at the same time being done to a whole community or populace, but there is no conceptual necessity to this fact; accumulative harms may be serious individual harms. (Kernohan, 1993, 2-5) Feinberg describes the accumulative harm of air pollution like this:
Sometimes one individual source of pollution may cross the threshold into harm all by itself, but often many sources are needed. The accumulative harm cases, however, cannot be said to involve harmful conduct; no individual, maliciously or recklessly, causes the accumulative harm2.
Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them.
Public opinion, ostracism, harassing environments, and pornography are all accumulative harms. In this essay R.V Brown mostly focus on forms of pollution as examples of accumulative h ...
Cite this document
(“John Stuart Mills Harm Principle Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words”, n.d.)
Retrieved from https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/294757-john-stuart-mills-harm-principle
(John Stuart Mills Harm Principle Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words)
“John Stuart Mills Harm Principle Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 Words”, n.d. https://studentshare.net/miscellaneous/294757-john-stuart-mills-harm-principle.
However, in order for these rules and regulations to be obeyed, there must be an autonomous government that ensures people follow the rule without using any favor in its administration (Bowie and Simon 56). Therefore, this essay is going to support the crucial role played by society in ensuring citizens enjoy their liberties, freedoms and happiness, as advocated by Mill in his two books On Liberty and Utilitarianism.
we may conditionally divide into two parts. Its first part declares that one has the right to do whatever he or she wants and be free from the interference from other people, and the second part states that the only allowable justification for an interference into ones actions is the prevention of harm from being inflicted on others.3 Even today, this two-sided principle of liberty seems to belong to the set of basic values our society would wish to be governed by4, and therefore this principle may be expected to be the basis for public policy, insofar as we perceive public policy as intentions and actions of a government authorised by citizens to govern the society.
John Stuart Mill is considered among one of the fathers of liberalism, who proposed the concept of an expansive liberty with minimal restraint. His work 'On Liberty' is a complete set of principles that addresses the ideal nature and extent of liberty to be exercised by society over an individual.
These elements are reflected in the limitations which he placed upon the state's control of its citizen's lives, and some of the counter-arguments against Mill's theory. It becomes clear through reading of Mill's work and that of his commentators, that Mill's alternative to the current legal and social system contains as many complicated controls as those which he intended to replace.
Before discussing the justification of liberty, we would talk about the idea behind liberty and how Mill links liberty to morality1.
On Liberty published in 1859 presented not only a philosophy of history and transition but demonstrated his understanding on
John Stuart Mill’s classic work, “On Liberty” is one of the foundational liberal documents, and as such is enshrined in the politics, laws, philosophy, and policies of a wide variety of places. The capitalist practices that flow through the entire planet also largely stem from Mill’s ideas.
Individuals who employ higher faculties often get less contented even though their pleasure is of higher character than of an animal. This paper is a discussion of the mills statement that “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig
2 Pages(500 words)Essay
GOT A TRICKY QUESTION? RECEIVE AN ANSWER FROM STUDENTS LIKE YOU!
Let us find you another Essay on topic John Stuart Mills Harm Principle for FREE!