Mills Principle of Harm - Essay Example

Mill’s Principle of Harm Human rights and actions have always been the topic of discussion among thinkers and philosophers. How much liberty does a person have and to what extent should the society dictate an individual or a group has been a debatable issue in all ages. Many philosophers and thinkers expressed their views about the society and its control over the individuals specially the weaker ones; among these the views of John Stuart Mill were widely accepted by the people. John Stuart Mill was an English philosopher who in his book “On Liberty” has discussed at length the nature and the boundary of the power that can be exercised by the society over the individual without encroaching on the individual’s rights. Although most philosophers and thinkers had at one time or the other discussed these concepts but Mill went a step ahead to establish the “harm principle” according to which every individual had the right to act as he wanted as long as his actions did not cause harm to others (Riley 1998). An individual could do or say whatever made him happy or comfortable or what he considered better for himself but only if his actions and views did not disturb or affect the others adversely. Also any person or a group of people had no right to force a person to do something which they feel was right for that person if he had no desire to do so. In Mill’s opinion the individuals are in a better position to judge what is good for them and what is not. Although Mill believed that regulation and interference in a person’s life was necessary, but he strongly advocated individual liberty (Mill 2010). During Mill’s time democracy was gaining strength day by day. But instead of the rule of the people, Mill saw democracy as the rule or rather the tyranny of the majority which does not consider the needs of the minorities or the individual who differs from the majority view (Criminalization and legalization; some arguments from John Stuart Mill 2006). Mill fully supported democracy but the one which allowed individual freedom in all spheres of human endeavor (Riley 1998). What is Harm? Mill did not actually define “harm” but by explaining his concept further Mill said that the society had no right to intervene for any self regarding action (one which directly affects the individual) which may have the potential to harm the individual carrying out the act. However Mill made an exception in this case as he exempted those who were “incapable of self-government” such as young children who require the care of other people or the barbarian tribes where rule of force is the most effective and accepted rule (Criminalization and legalization; some arguments from John Stuart Mill 2006). Mill was of the opinion that the society or the individual could only interfere if the actions of a person or a group were potentially threatening. Under these circumstances the society was justified in using power to restrain a person or a group from harming others. Failure to save a child from drowning or failure to pay taxes and even failure to testify in court were some “harms” in Mill’s view which could harm others. Mill also said that an offer of a risky or unsafe employment from an employer was “harmless” but only if he has warned the employee of the risks involved. Also Mill is strictly against slavery and states that the society should never allow people to sell themselves in slavery. In the light of Mill’s principle if one businessman deliberately burned the shop of another businessman than that would be “harmful” but if he put his rival out of business by lowering the prices of his goods than such an act is legal. Similarly according to Mill’s principle a normal person getting drunk harms no one but the driver of a vehicle or a policeman on duty or a soldier getting drunk are harmful because this act of theirs could affect many lives. Applying Mill’s Principle of Harm Mill’s Principle of Harm could be applied in the real life but if it was clear on some issues, it caused confusion in others. For example smoking is injurious to health as it affects not only the smoker but also the people around him. For this reason a ban on smoking in public places and offices was a good step for the well being of the community. Similarly the use of steroids is banned in all forms of sports not because it use has negative affects on the players health but due to the fact that steroids gave an added advantage to the players against those who do not use steroids. Mill’s essay also raises the question of the use of criminal law in restricting freedom. Another important question that arises is that of the function of the police and how far should the freedom of a person be invaded in order to prevent crime or accident from taking place. Prevention of a crime is the duty of government but how far should the government go to prevent crime from taking place is a debatable issue especially when the measures taken to prevent crime focus on one aspect of the society only (Gray & Smith (Eds.) 1991). A contemporary example is that of “stop and search” practices carried out in the UK. This practice was carried out to bring the crime rate down but instead of being carried out fairly, it was exploited. According to Bowling & Delsol (26 May 2010) blacks were six times more subjected to stop and search than white people; also Asians were twice as likely to undergo this humiliating experience than whites. There are some acts which challenge the moral limits; moral limits are set by the society and legally restrict the person from engaging in certain kinds of acts. Prostitution and gambling are such acts and here Mill’s principle lacks precision particularly in the case of prostitution. From Mill’s description of self regarding acts, prostitution is a harmless act as it takes place with the mutual consent of two adults, does not cause any harm and above all is a means of earning. But what about the pimps who force and torture women into prostitution? Prostitution is also the root cause of human trafficking in many countries. Gambling is also done for personal pleasure but a gambler can lose all that he has leaving him incapable of supporting his family. In this way the gambler’s actions harm his family members. Under such circumstances should the gambler be punished for putting his family’s welfare at stake or should the owners of gambling houses be penalized for running such a business which can adversely affect the families of those visiting this place. Homosexuality which was another bold issue which Mill’s harm principle addressed. People in Britain had strong objections to homosexuality and sexual relations between people of the same sex but as per Mill’s definition, it was a harmless act as it did not affect anyone (Ingram 2006). Similarly Mill’s harm principle also supported polygamy which is carried out by Mormons though it is unfair to women but again it was a legal contract between two consenting adults and therefore is not considered harmful (Ingram 2006). Pornography is a key controversial issue; a large majority regards pornography shameful, indecent and offensive. But in the light of Mill’s harm principle it does not cause harm if carried out within the privacy of a house or any four walls. It may harm the participants but not the others. Also in this case too the participants are willing adults. The defenders and critics of pornography both use Mill’s principle to prove their point. The defenders conclude that pornography is a self regarding act and is done with the free will of the participant (Easton 1994). They also argued that pornography could affect the consumer but then they mentioned the rights of an individual to do as he/she pleases and also the freedom of expression. They mentioned that if pornography was regulated, much work of art and literature would also come under threat. Furthermore the defenders rested their case by reminding as per Mill’s principle the freedom of thought was nothing without the freedom of publishing. The critics argued that pornography especially child pornography could potentially harm women and children as it could allure men and could evoke feelings. It should be noted here that Mill does not support pornography nor condemns it but asks for general tolerance (Easton 1994). Mill strongly advocated the freedom of thought, expression and association and according to him no society is truly a free society where these principles are not exercised (Fitzpatrick 2006). The noted exception to this is when our conduct is harmful to others. Mill does not regard persuasion as harmful; according to him if a person is engaged in an activity which can harm him then he should be persuaded against it and not forced. Mill considers the use of words especially reasoned arguments outside the boundaries of harm. Various examples of persuasion are the health campaigns launched by the government against hazards of drugs, smoking, health diets etc. Mill regards such warnings and the informal persuasion by friends and family members which can change a person’s life for better as harmless and within the norms (Criminalization and legalization; some arguments from John Stuart Mill 2006). Giving the example of over charging corn dealers Mill explained his views over freedom of expression. Mill stated that by overcharging the corn dealers were making poor people starve; the affected people could show their anger either verbally or in writing; both forms could be offensive but were not potentially harmful. However if the people collected outside the house in the form of an angry mob then that could cause harm as the mob could get violent. The freedom of speech did not give the people the right to hurt other’s feelings. Mill condemned the hate speeches which were directed towards a weaker sect of the society; a contemporary example of which is words like “nigger”, “bitch” and phrases like “kill all Muslims”. Such expressions incite violence and may cause physical and psychological harm to the victims (Curtis 2010). Hate speeches should be regulated. In UK hate speeches are considered as a crime and the offenders can be subjected to fine or imprisonment or both. In the light of Mill’s essay the public meetings held by racists in areas where a large number of members of the ethnic minority lived could cause harm. This is because in such meetings hatred and negativity against the minorities is promoted and the beliefs and values of the minorities are verbally abused. Mill’s has termed such meetings which hurt people’s sentiments as harmful because the verbal abuse is as bad as physical abuse and sometimes leads to violent clashes between the two groups. Emphasizing the importance of the freedom of speech Mill states that the freedom to express one’s views may result in bringing up new ideas which could help in the development of the society. It also encourages truth from emerging, minimizes error and encourages healthy debate. Mill also values the opinions of the minorities and argues just because they are the views of a handful of people does not mean they are not important. Conclusion Mill’s Harm Principle seems quite simple on the surface; it generally describes the individual freedom and social control. According to Warburton (2009) if the principle of harm was followed, there would be more freedom, tolerance of diversity and a happier and more content society. The principle of harm simply states that a person can do whatever he wishes as long as his actions do not harm or hurt anyone. If the actions of a person are liable to cause harm then power can be used for preventing him against such acts. A deeper analysis showed that applying the harm principle was not that simple as it was rather vague on a number of issues. Also Mill did not set a limit to the extent harm should be taken to. References Bowling, B & Delsol, R 2010, Reducing Stop-and-search paperwork undermines fairness, The Guardian, 26 May 2010, viewed 04 Dec, 2011 Criminalization and Legalization: Some arguments from John Stuart Mill, 2006, Version 17.10.06, Notes. Curtis, WM 2010, Hate Speech, in Bevir, M (Ed), Encyclopedia of Political Theory, pp. 598-599, USA: SAGE. Easton, SM 1994, The problem of pornography: regulation and the right to free speech, London, USA and Canada: Routledge. Fitzpatrick, JR 2006, John Stuart Mills political philosophy: balancing freedom and the collective good, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Gray, J & Smith, GW (Eds.) 1991, J.S. Mill On Liberty in Focus, London, USA and Canada: Routledge. Ingram, D 2006, Law: Key Concepts in Philosophy, London: Continuum International Publishing Group. Mill, JS 2010, Utilitarianism (Mobi Classics), Boston: MobileReference. Riley, J 1998, Routledge Philosophy Guidebook to Mill on Liberty, USA and Canada: Routledge. Warburton, N 2009, Free Speech: A very Short Introduction, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More