Got a tricky question? Receive an answer from students like you! Try us!

If a government can hinder or harm a person to prevent harm to others, why not for that person's own good? Criticize Mill' - Essay Example

Only on StudentShare
Author : windlermarcus
Pages 3 (753 words)


The Harm Principle John Stuart Mill, a philosopher in the 18th Century, explicitly explained the Harm Principle, stating that the State capacitates individuals to do as they wish, on condition that their actions do not, in any way harm other people or the doer’s rights do not hinder the rights of other individuals…

Extract of sample
If a government can hinder or harm a person to prevent harm to others, why not for that person's own good? Criticize Mill'

However, the harm principle bars individuals from continually harming themselves and their property, since doing so may have severe implications on other societal members. The harm principle states that freedom of speech is essential because every individual possesses liberty of thought (Eisenach 117). However, he did agree that although freedom of speech is justified, it should not cause any harm to others. Mills argues that tyranny is a democracy form of government for uncivilized countries, on the best people on condition that they look into the interests of their subjects. He introduced the various tyrannies that included the majority and the societal tyrannies (Mill 156). The harm principle proves to be democratic, since it equates individuals, with the reigning regime ensuring the law is upheld. Mill’s principal on liberty also safeguards people from being downcast and keeps them content, thereby promoting a self-sacrificing society (Mill 156). The harm principle thus seems to promote fairness among member of the society. It precludes selfish behaviors and makes an individual aware of the consequences if they were to hurt others. Mill’s principle on liberty appears to promote individual’s liberalization and a free society. However, critics argue that the principle may have some loopholes (Linklater 104). ...
Download paper
Not exactly what you need?

Related Essays

Why It Is Good to Be Good? Or Why It Is Goodness Constructive?
He provides a constructive definition of justice, because it builds up on the individual level of justice and he applies it to the social notion of justice. Justice is related to goodness, because it is good to be just. This essay examines good and evil and relates it to Plato’s The Republic, as well as Cataleya, a heroine. Evil is differentiated from good in this essay, because it creates injustice and comes from violating the virtues of the soul, according to Book II of The Republic. I agree with Plato that being good is good in itself, and it is also good because of its virtuous…
5 pages (1255 words)
Can freedom of speech, as an absolute right, be defended on utilitarian terms? If not, can Ronald Dworkin defend it as a 'fundam
.….10 Abstract This paper concentrates on the notion of freedom of speech and how its functioning has been elucidated in a synchronized manner. The paper also entails the analysis of how freedom of speech as an absolute right can be defended on the utilitarian ground. The last part deals with the critical evaluation of how the famous liberal scholar, Ronald Dworkin, defended the freedom of speech as a fundamental human right and how far he is able to achieve his goal. The general intellection of almost all philosophers today is that human beings with the virtue of their nature possess moral…
5 pages (1255 words)
Why does Ruse say that Creationism should not be understood as a Science
The two have not had fecund collaboration in history except the uneasy relationship philosophy, religion and science had during the medieval period. Called the dark ages, it shows that combining religion, philosophy and science does little good, if any. The burning of Giordano Bruno at the stake for pushing the envelope past what the church accepted underscores the uneasy marriage that was philosophy (and by extension science) and religion. At the center of this discussion are creationism and why the philosopher and historian Michael Ruse holds that it should not be understood as a science.…
3 pages (753 words)
Can a society that has developed agriculture still be a Leaver society, or is it doomed to be a society of Takers?
They indulge in a string of meetings, wherein Ishmael lends a hand to the narrator in comprehending the cultural history of humans. Ishmael holds the view that there are two breeds of human beings; the Leavers and the Takers. While the so called Takers are those who become sophisticated, by virtue of their faculty of intelligence, the Leavers are supposed to represent the category that has remained where they belong, purportedly living their lives in a way that the Takers could not. However, by virtue of embracing a new concept and living by it does not make a human a simple taker. This…
3 pages (753 words)
Davidson argues that you can only find a solution to the problem of other minds if you take it that knowledge about one's own mi
In this relation, he asserts that the three knowledge forms a tripod in which the absence of any of them automatically makes it unable to stand; hence, it remains that the tripod must always be in the complementary of the thee cardinal categories of knowledge (Davidson, The essential 64). What is evident in the Donald’s argument is how evidence can be adduced in relation to the three knowledge. In regard to the knowledge of the mind and that of immediate surroundings, he states that they are not subject to much proof since they are directly construed by an individual and do not need much…
6 pages (1506 words)
Provide an argument for the claim that (some) mental states are not identical to any brain state. Explain why the argument is va
It also provides reason why that argument is valid and explains the resources the monist has at her disposal to undermine our confidence in the soundness of this argument. It also evaluates the response of a monist to the dualist argument that has been provided. The argument for the claim that some mental states are not identical to any brain state is supported by various premises. First, phenomenal properties can only reside in mental substances and not physical objects such as the brain. Second, physical bodies like the brain have spatial properties while minds do not have spatial…
3 pages (753 words)
Is it morally permissible to kill one innocent person as a means to saving some larger number of innocent people's lives? Why
However, according to Kantian principle, our duty is to do certain things irrespective of the motive, at least not from a sense of duty. Sometimes one may do something he or she thinks is the right thing to do but in the end the act is wrong. For example, killing one person to save more others may seem right but killing is a crime and as such it is wrong no matter what reason it was intended. So what makes right acts right? Is morality relative or absolute? These are questions that we need to ask ourselves in order to standard ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ actions. The specific ethical issue to…
7 pages (1757 words)