The Harm Principle Essays - Philosophy, Ethics, Classical Liberalism

The Harm Principle The Harm Principle was first expressed by John Stuart Mill in his essay On Liberty, which sought to explain the circumstances in which the government should be able to administer punishment, and enforce the law. The principle seems very simple and attractive at first, however it may be this simplicity which is the principle's downfall. As a Utilitarian, Mill thought that through the freedom of expression and personal liberty that accompany the Harm Principle, we can produce the most happiness for the most number of people. However, because of its oversimplification and ambiguous themes, the Harm Principle can easily be used to sidestepped many actions most of us would assume to be immoral. It is because of these reasons that I will argue the Harm Principle does not properly account for the limits of the law without some crucial restrictions being placed on how it can be applied. The Harm Principle, in its most basic form, states that it is only permissible for the government to interfere in the actions of individuals when those actions cause harm to other individuals. This is a very brief explanation however; the principle becomes much more complicated when we start asking questions like "how do we define harm?", or "how should we enforce laws surrounding potential harm?" Mill includes some exceptions to the principle, for example, it does not apply to anyone who does not have "mature faculties," as Mill puts it. This group would include children, the mentally disabled, and any "non-civilized" societies. Mill also describes a few other conditions to the harm principle. He states that we are able to consent to harm, to a certain extent, with activities like boxing or dangerous professions. This consent to harm only extends to a certain degree however; if we consent to having our liberty taken away (i.e. slavery), Mill thinks that this deprivation of freedom would inhibit people from living as they wish. This freedom to live life however one pleases, so long as it does not interfere with anyone else, would lead to different ways of living, different ways of thinking, and ultimately, the production of the most good for the most amount of people. This individuality is what makes us humans; it is what compels us to try new and different things and allows us to broaden our horizons of the world. Aside from actions, Mill also argues that individuals should be free to think however they choose to, and believe whatever they wish to believe. He maintains that the truth itself is "living" or dynamic, and that by allowing people to question things and have right or wrong opinions, we can better hone in on the absolute truth. According to Mill, by allowing for multiple competing opinions, we can debate, reason, and modify the truth in order to produce the most happiness. By learning which ideas are correct and which are incorrect, we can better understand the issue in question. Mill believed humans are not infallible, and that the truth and human error go hand-in-hand. Mill also discussed the harm that can be caused by inaction and claimed, "[a] person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury." Mill believed that it is our duty to save other's lives and protect those who cannot protect themselves. He argued that we should be held responsible by society for not doing so, even though we are not directly harming them. This idea sheds light on the ambiguity of the Harm Principle. To what extent can we say that individuals have a duty to prevent others from harm? Is someone who spends their dollar on a coffee rather than donating it to a trustworthy charity causing indirect harm? This is a problem for the principle and seems to suggest that Mill favours a version of the theory that prevents harm, rather than one that prevents someone from doing harm. Most people agree, excluding Devlin, that there are principled and substantive limits to the law. The law can only extend so far before it becomes counterproductive. According to Mill, the law should be limited to cases