Mill's Approach to No Harm Theory - Essay Example

Section/# The “No Harm” Argument There are more than a few problems with regards to Mill’s understanding and identification of the belief that sane adults should be allowed to do as they wish so long as they do not hurt others. First among these is the fundamental legal question of what defines sane and what defines an adult. Although coming to a definition of what defines an adult might be the more easily defined aspect of this argument, sanity is something that requires a gatekeeper in order to determine. As such, society at large will either need to provide this gatekeeper on their own or allow an entity to complete such a task for them. As a function of analyzing and drawing inference upon Mill’s “no harm” principle of ethics and morality, this particular essay will focus upon the strength of the argument and some of the main problems and issues that present themselves if the individual chooses to approach morality and decisions making from such an angle. In such a manner, rather than trying to prove or disprove the efficacy of Mills approach as exemplified in the “no harm” theory, this particular analysis will neither seek to prove or disprove whether the theory is true. Instead, a level of inference will be gleaned with reference to whether or not the theory is capable of completely and utterly defining the means by which society interacts with itself and with the individual; and whether or not such an interaction is best described by Mills theory. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the reader should integrate with an understanding of the nature of the sanity argument, as Mill presents it. Ultimately, the argument is quite simple and straight forward. Providing that an individual is of age, i.e. an adult, and providing that they are of sane mind, they can and should be allowed to pursue whatever activities make them happy so long as they do not hurt anyone else. At face value, the argument seems simple as well as concrete; however, upon closer inspection, there are a number of key shortcomings; not the least of which is with regards to the definition and understanding of sanity versus insanity as well as the greater and broader understanding of direct versus indirect levels of harm. Says Mill of such a precept: “The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection” (Mill 17). Taking the last concept as an example, the reader can and should understand that Mill relates the argument within the rubric of a situation in which the sane, adult individual, in a perfect world, would pursue only those courses of action that would not equate to any harm being done to fellow mankind. However, there is an issue that arises within such an understanding. The reader can and should integrate with an understanding of what defines “harm”. Whereas at cursory glance of the argument, it is clear that activities such as child molestation, drunk driving, or deriving pleasure from harming others in any form or variety would be fundamentally against the “no harm” principle put forward by Mill. Yet, there exists a more nuanced level of interpretation that can and should be integrated with. For instance, the reader can take an example of an individual that engages in recreational drug use within their home, alone, and not acting to corrupt or damage the health of any other members of society. According to Mill, such an action would likely necessarily represent an exemplification of the “no harm” principle. Due to the fact that the individual is harming themselves only, there is no cause for alarm nor any reason why society might wish to correct such an action. Of course, in consideration of such a hypothetical, it is necessary for the reader to divorce themselves from the ultimate morality of drug usage as a means of altering one’s reality and solely focus upon the level of harm that is being perpetrated. Moreover, approaching the topic from a different standpoint, the reader can and should take the situation to its likely and ultimate conclusion. Several decades later, after sustained damage to health, the individual will likely require medical care and seek the services of a doctor or a hospital as a means of improving their rapidly deteriorating quality of life. It is at this precise juncture that society in general becomes a stakeholder of the “no harm” actions that the individual has perpetrated. Although not necessarily the case in Mill’s own time, the level and nature of the current healthcare sitation, exhibited in many developed nations around the world, necessarily means that society at learge will be beholden to the indirect damage that the individual has perpetrate. Many actions, although not causing direct harm to society can cause an indirect level of harm. Ultimately, if an individual is pursuing any action that can harm themselves, it can also have an indirect level of harm to society as well. In such a way, the strength and resiliency of Mill’s argument is ultimately reduced. A secondary issue with regards to Mill’s definition and interpretation of the “no harm” principle is with regards to the level and extent to which sanity within the individual actor can be defined and should be measured. This relates back to the issue of who will be the gatekeeper to determine if an individual can act as a means of promoting their own utility and meeting the requirement of sanity that Mill lays out. If society completes such a task on their own, then the entire process falls suspect to bias as nearly everyone will consider themselves to fall within the bounds of being completely sane. Conversely, and perhaps even more worrisome, is the fact that in order for such a system of “no harm “ to be perfectly implemented, it would be incumbent upon society to delegate a gatekeeper as a means of determining who is sane and who is not in order to grant the power and right to a level of self-determination. As can be seen from a litany of past instances throughout history and the history of thought and philosophy, specifying a gatekeeper with regards to human thought and action invariably results in a catastrophe of monumental proportions as individuals who represent a semblance of current “normality” and/or conformity are given rights that individuals that fall outside of such superficial and artificially constructed concepts do not have (Schauer 708). As such, if a gatekeeper is selected to perform such a task independently, the measurements by which such a determination would be made a worrisome to say the least. Ultimately, although laudable in its theory, the precept of “no harm” begins to ravel under closer scrutiny. As a function of this, the reader is able to understand that though Mill presents an important precept of liberal thinking and helps to identify it in terms of how the individual can and should seek to relate with the society in which he/she lives, such a definition is not capable of relating the full range of depth, nuance, and complexity that defines the interrelated subsystems of society as they currently exist. To Mills credit, the theory of “no harm” is appropriate in helping to inform a moral maxim of what actions can and should be permissible. As such, the theory exhibits a great deal of natural resiliency; however, when one seeks to apply it to the unique dynamics of the person’s relationship to society and the responsibilities that both entities within such a dynamic have with regards to one another, the argument is not able to handle such a level of depth and complexity. Further the Mill’s credit, any single theory of philosophy is almost by very definition not capable of standing up to the scrutiny imposed upon it by successive generations of analysists, scholars, and moral theorists. In such a manner, rather than concluding that the theory in and of itself has no merit and should not be engaged with, the reader should instead come away with the understanding that Mill has provided a necessary and important addition to the understanding with relation to the dynamic between the individual and society. Although incapable of encapsulating the complexity and depth fo each and every situation, it can nonetheless serve as a useful backbone and springboard upon which to launch successive inquiry with regards to the relationship that exists between the individual and the community. Works Cited Mill, John S., and Alburey Castell. On liberty. Northbrook, Ill: AHM Pub. Corp, 1947. Print. Schauer, Frederick. "Expression And Its Consequences." University Of Toronto Law Journal 57.3 (2007): 705-720. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Apr. 2013. Read More