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

If	a	government	can	hinder	or	harm	a	person	to	prevent	harm	to	others,	why	not	for	that	 person
Pages 3 (753 words)
Download 0
Name Course Tutor Date 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.


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?