What Is the Very Simple Principle that Mill Sets out to Defend in On Liberty - Coursework Example

Introduction The ‘very one principle’ defended by Mill is the harm principle. Mill upholds to a greater extent the sovereignty of an individual. The restrictive liberty according to Mill is only applicable based on the Utilitarian principle that focuses on the consequence of an individual’s actions to the society. According to Mill, self-regarding and other-regarding actions are distinguished. Mill also validates government interventions when the measures of a person’s physically or directly infringes on the rights of another but not self-harm caused by a different to herself. The mankind is solely warranted individually or collectively to infringe on one’s liberty based on self-protection. In addition, the sole purpose against which power is rightfully enforced over a particular societal individual without his consent is to weed out impending harm to others. A person is thus solely amenable to the society through actions that regard other societal members. With respect to individual’s work that purely sees himself, his independence as well as his right is absolute. The individual is hence sovereign over himself, mind and own body. According to the principle, Mills synthesize down to the principle of Utility. Therefore, all the ethical considerations are to be based on the utility concept. “I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being” (John, 1997, p. 69-70). Body Mill’s harm principle differentiate harm and mere offence. Mill asserts that not every consequence for others harms. On the hand, Mill perceives offense as minor and ephemeral. An action qualifies to be a harm when it is injurious or infringes the interest of other people and only to those interest in which such people have rights. Mill rejects the restrictions of a mere offense portraying the harm principle as his justification for limiting liberty. Mill’s harm principle is prospectively applied in curbing an individual actions that cause harm to others. Actions posing sufficient risk of harm can thus be regulated (Gutman &Thompson, 1996). Consequently, the threshold of a particular vary inversely with the amount of harm risked and hence the possibility of harm needed to validate restrictions is lower indicates the greater the harm risked. The harm principle is not regulated between individuals and the government but rather encompasses family especially the relationships between wives and husband as well as parents and children. Mill further defined the scope limitation on his harm principle as it is inapplicable to individuals with inadequate normative competence. Mill focuses on non-consequential harm as he advocated the maxim volenti non fit injuria as depicted in his concept of Utilitarianism. Mill principle pointed out that an individual who has willingly consented to an action that result to self-injury cannot complain has no legitimate complaint against such harm. In his fierce defensive deliberations for the simple principle, Mill recognizes the vagueness of utility but stops not at nothing to justify that evaluation of individual’s moral status through an in-depth investigation of their consequences. Mill further dismissed the critics that have failed to understand Mill’s target, the significant threat to human liberty as well as the person his principle is directed against. Mill thus downtrodden the chances of tyrannical governments in contemporary 19th-century society (Gutman &Thompson, 1996). Despite his acceptance of rulers being antagonist to the ruled, he held that representational democracy development has enhanced the probability that rulers will always associate with the ruled lessening or disappearance of antagonism. Mill recognized society as the threat to the liberty as he viewed society as an agent that can do things besides being done for things. “Society can and does its mandate.”(John, 1997, p.63) Mill, therefore, points out that we are protected by the society and thus we owe it remittances. However, Mill notes that the action of corporation is more often than not hazardous based on its possibilities of tyrannizing in hidden manners. Mill principle thus advocates the need for protection against the tyranny of the dominating opinion as well as feelings of the societal tendency to impose its ideas and practices as norms of practices to its defiance. Mill further identified positive actions that society can force an individual to execute such as adducing evidence to the court and sharing common defense besides participating in other activities beneficial to the society from which we enjoy the protection (John, 1997, p.70). In addition, Mill’s principle also justified the need to compel an individual to perform some acts of individual beneficence like rescuing one’s life as well as defenseless protection against abuse. It is the automatically compelling to individual to execute some tasks that he would have otherwise been downtrodden if he were not to perform. “Things which whenever it is of course a man’s duty to do he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing” (John, 1997, p. 70). Therefore, Mill’s principle that has attracted negative interpretations is consistent with respect to active duties as well as obligations and frequently embraces such positivity. Mill is, however, keen not to fall trapped of proponents of deliberative liberty but rather the fundamental freedom (Gutman &Thompson, 1996). Therefore, noted positive obligations are not as a result of contractual arrangements based on free contents but rather the consequences of individual’s automatic membership of the society. Mill’s thus explicitly dissent to any contractual foundations of the society as he points out that, “society is not founded on a contract and…..no good purpose is answered by inventing a contract in order to deduce social obligations from it…”( John, 1997, p.141). Mill therefore encourages those who perceive On Liberty as libertarianism’s charter to solely do so through the elaborate list of liberty-restricting positive obligations obtained by an individual not as a consequence of explicit contract or free assumption of responsibility but as a virtue of staying with other societal members. Across Mill’s essay, he is however guilty of the fallacy of misplaced concreteness as he perceived a society as an entity. The phrase, “society” is conventionally accepted as shorthand used to imply the collective human actions and interactions (Isaiah, 1969). In standard setting, these attributes attached to society are inevitabilities and hence the society lacks ways incapable of reducible to the activities of individual agents with no person being able to claim to a societal agent. Indeed, we owe nothing to the society, but rather to the individuals surrounding us despite the metaphoric usage of such terms in writing. Besides the misplaced concretizing the concept of “society”, the author confounded the metaphorical senses and literal meanings of “tyranny. There is a difference between the politico-legal coercion embedded on application of force via particular agencies as police or via ordinary criminal violence against property or individual and the social pressure that is not accompanied by force and/or threat of force. The harm principle can only be defensible when the said harm is understood as an unjustified damage to other individual interest but not rather as a damage to another’s interest. Therefore, the harm protected Mill’s principle encompasses those acts infringing on other individual’s rights as well as their properties. Mill’s explains with respect to Algernon’s grabbing the last cucumber sandwich are however not persuasive based on the degree of restrictions by the principle of utility that is driven by the refusal to embrace every aspect of independent abstract concept of right. Mill justified this as he pointed out, “I forego any advantage that could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility.” (John, 19997, p.69-70). To further showcase the how defensible the principle can be, Mill distinguished basic liberty of deliberative democracy from Mill’s liberty based on ways making it more defensible as a constitutional principle of deliberative democracy. Mill liberalism rejected two types of claims key political deliberations. Mill thus thwarts down the moralist claim that legislate based on social morality without individual harm. In addition, Mill fails to support the claims of paternalist whose legislation are driven by individual wellbeing in case of non-consent. In disregard to Mill’s principle, basic liberty as proposed by deliberative democracy warrants both paternalist and moralist position in the process of designing a public policy (Mill, 2002). Paternalism and moralism depict the significant values required to be respected by a deliberative perspective. In addition, both paternalism and moralism make liberty conflicting claims as well as denying the preferences of basic liberty. Mill rejects actions by democratic governments that prohibit certain actions rated immoral despite lack of harms to others as well as those harming the individuals since he wants to execute it hence restricting on an individual’s freedom of choice. Mill, therefore, rejects moralist and paternalist actions aimed at prohibiting actions by citizens that even do not infringe others or cause no direct damages to others. Mill pointed out the major challenge of deliberative democracy is uncovering effective ways to recognize the legitimate claims of paternalism and moralism at the same time trying to maintain the preference of basic liberty. Conclusion “Over himself, over his body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” Mill so concluded in what has since been the classic statement against the liberal principle of liberty. Mill’s one very simple principle has persistently been explicitly in theory as well as implicitly in practice, the stepping stone for defenses of liberty with his principle not being an obvious concept and it is evidently not simple (Mill, 2002). The harm principle may, therefore, fail to be Mill’s guiding principle. The author conflates the tyrannical acts that liberty-constrained with metaphorically tyrannical non-liberty-constrained acts. The confliction outcomes are partially due to his tendency to perceive society as an entity as well as his utility-restrained concept, particularly, the ultimate appeal of all ethical consideration that renders merely impossible for Mill to account for harm that would otherwise make harm principle morally coherent. The author’s ‘one very simple principle’ is key to “On Liberty.” The idea is both provocative idea as well as a thought-provoking one. The re-evaluation of Mill’s principle, however, will run parallel to that of On Liberty with respect to broader perspective of political philosophy and Mill’s thought. Reference Gutman, A. &Thompson, D, (1996). Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Mill J.S, On Liberty, in Collected Works of Mill John Stuart, ed. J. M. Robson, vol. 18 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1977), chap. I, p. 224. Mill, J. S, Acton, Harry Burrows (1972). Utilitarianism: Liberty; Representative government. Isaiah, Hardy, Henry. (2002). Liberty: incorporating four essays on liberty - Berlin, Isaiah (1969). Four essays on liberty. Berlin. Gray, Mill, (1996). Mill on liberty: a defense. Read More