The Principle of Harm in Modern Society - Essay Example

Harm principle John Stuart Mill is considered the father ic liberalism. The nineteenth century philosopher established the foundations for our modern democracies, based on individual rights and liberties. Although his ideas were widely influential for the construction of modern states and societies, one of his concepts remains very controversial and is often put aside : the harm principle. Basically, Mill argues that governments should only intervene to prevent people from harming others. Any individual action, even if judged immoral or simply wrong, should be tolerated if it does not hurt others. Is this principle effective? It surely sounds good, but does it work? Should our governments base their actions on the harm principle? In this paper, I will examine Mill’s arguments defending the harm principle, establish its weaknesses and explain why I believe this principle can be useful, only if we understand it in its wider sense. In opposition to other influential thinkers, such as Rousseau or Marx, Mill strongly believes in individualism. From his perspective, every individual possesses the capacity to act rationally and elect what is best suited for him or her. In a utilitarian perspective, society as a whole would benefits from individual freedom. If individuals enjoy liberty, they will make logical choices for themselves, and in the process become happier. As individuals become fulfilled and happy, society as whole gets more peaceful and successful. In this set of mind, Mill tries to find a political solution to protect people from tyranny (including tyranny of the majority, as experienced during the French Revolution). (Mill, 13) He proposes a solution based on the harm principle. Basically, individuals should be free to act as they wish, as long as they do not hurt others. In this context, the government’s main function is to protect its citizens from wrongdoings (violence, robbery etc.). In doing so, it creates a social space for individual to enjoy freedom. Some misconducts or immoral actions should be tolerated because “the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom.” (Mill, 147) The harm principle is therefore a limit that helps society define what is acceptable and what is not. In that sense, it offers a clear paradigm for political, social and economic organization. Mill argues that this represents the only way individuals can benefit from protection and order without losing their freedom, which is the ultimate aim. We should not see Mill as libertarian or an anarchist. He does put limits to his harm principle. For example, he considers that some people, “children and persons under age, […] persons of mature years who are equally incapable of self-government”, should be protected. (Mill, 144) In definitive, Mill greatly values freedom and is willing to accept some “collateral damages” that come with it. In theory, Mill’s harm principle seems logical and valuable. In practice it has proved to be quite useful as well. It has contributed to the elaboration of most constitutional democracies. One pertinent example can be found in the American Bill of Rights. It includes legal protection for many individual rights (freedom of speech, of assembly, due process in front of the law etc.). In the Bill of Rights, the harm principle is clearly apparent and serves as the backbone of the document. In short, the idea that individuals are free to live as they wish, as long as it allows others to do so as well, represents a central principle for all modern democracies. Some important weaknesses appear when we consider the harm principle within a practical perspective. The most important problem resides in the fact that “harm” is a very vague concept. (Grey, 3) Mill has a very confined conception of what harm is. To put it briefly, it refers to direct harm, which means almost exclusively physical harm (to an individual or his property). Consequently, the harm one can provoke to others (or society in general) by hurting himself should not be restrained. Numerous contemporary laws bypass Mill’s harm principle. They are based on the idea that, as a society, we sometimes have the responsibility to protect people from themselves or we have to consider social costs of individual actions. Here a few telling examples: forbidding prostitution, public drunkenness, making drugs illegal (from cannabis to crack-cocaine), mandatory security belt etc. Basically, many of our contemporary laws are clearly in opposition to Mill’s harm principle. In fact, most of us would agree that Mill’s harm principle does make sense, since as adults, we wish to be as free as possible. On the other hand, many of us also consider that society as a whole, therefore our representative government, possesses a moral responsibility to supervise individual behaviour because it often has indirect impacts on others. The security belt is a good example. By imposing the security belt on all drivers and passengers, the state limits individual freedom (which Mill would reject), however, it does so to limit negative impacts for that person (death, injuries), but also for society as a whole (medical, police, insurance costs). In this perspective, I argue that the harm principle is a valuable idea and can work. However, it should be understood in its wider sense. Indirect harm can be included in the harm principle. When society faces negative consequences out of individual actions, its representatives should definitively intervene. Of course, in this context, strong individual protections (constitutional and legal) become even more important, to avoid the tyranny of the majority as Mill rightfully denounces. In conclusion, the harm principle, as put forward by Mill, is a one of constitutional democracy founding concepts. It has helped established strong protections for individual rights. As we have seen, this principle is not totally applied in our societies. In fact, the harm principle remains a limited concept and democratic societies often wish that its governments intervene to prevent or limit harmful individual behaviour. The majority probably agrees with our contemporary use of the harm principle. Fortunately, Mill’s writings and legacy remind us that individuals should always have the opportunity to enjoy freedom, as long as it does not contravene others’ right to do so as well. The most difficult part is to determine where to draw the line between individual actions and harm to others, which represents a profound and unresolved question. Bibliography Books Locke, John, Two Treatise of Government and Letter Concerning Toleration, New Haven, Yale University Press, 2003. Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, London, John W. Parker and Son, 1859, ebook, Google Books, April 15th 2008, Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract, New York, Penguin Books, 2006. Article Grey, John N., “John Stuart Mill: Traditional and Revisionist Interpretations”, Literature of Liberty, vol.ii, no2, April-June 1979, The Library of Economics and Liberty, April 15th, 2008, http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/LtrLbrty/gryMTR1.html Read More