Essay Sample on The Harm Principle: Limiting Liberty to Protect Others

Introduction

The harm principle holds that the state may restrict one's behavior on if it can impact negatively on the others; otherwise, one is at Liberty to practice that which he thinks is right and benefit oneself. The principle has been used as the basis upon which severe judgments are made. At some point, individuals in the liberal society are suppressed in terms of their conduct not because the government or rulers are against them but because it may result in harmful effects to others (Brown 2015, 953).

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

The harm principle argues that every individual's action needs only to be minimum to prevent any harm that may be caused to other individuals (Brown 2015, 954). John Stuart Mill explained the harm principle basing on Liberty, by arguing that the only obligation for exercising power rightfully over any civilized society member, against the will, is to avoid harming others (Macleod 2016, 18). The same argument was stated early in the Declaration of Rights by France in 1789 of the citizen and man. It said that Liberty entails the freedom of doing everything without injuring anyone else. Thus the natural rights exercise of every man is not limited apart from those who claim to the community members the enjoyment of those rights. The limits can only be dictated by the law (Lombardi, Miyagishima, and Veneziani 2016, 2175).

With more understanding of the limits and rationale of the liberal principle of Mill, a closer consideration of its centerpiece, which is the Harm principle is analyzed. First, it is essential to understand that Mill gives a distinction between a minor offense and harm. Not all the consequences which are not welcoming for other individuals are counted as harm (Lombardi, Miyagishima and Veneziani 2016, 2180). Damage consists of any action which must be so dangerous or is pulling back people's interests whom they have freedom and rights. However, much Mill seems to avoid the rules of a minor offense, the principle of harm appears to be the primary justification that he recognized for liberty restrictions (Petersen 2016, 360).

Mill again saw that the harm principle is what can be applied prospectively to block anyone from operating in some ways that cause harm. On most occasions, all that individuals can know is that some actions are harm riskers. However, it is what seems to be what Mill needs (Cohen 2018, 10). There are essential and interesting questions concerning what risk threshold that must be implemented for harm principle purposes, which are not addressed by Mill. The limit presumably needs to differ with the length of the harmed risk inversely. For the probability of the required harm to justify rules is lower, the more significant the harmed risk.

Mill is looking towards ensuring that there is a broader scope of the harm principle. Mill insists that the policy of harm regulates more extensive relationships between people and the government. The application of harm principle needs to involve the family, especially the relations between wives and husbands, children, and parents. Even though Mill usually places his focus on harm, it seems that Mill's real attention in on the damage, which is non-consensual (Saunders 2016, 1015).

Has been seen, Mill is not able to think that the prevention of harm is enough to justify liberty restrictions. The moment any of the person's conduct part interferes prejudicially with the interest of other people. The community has jurisdiction over it, and whether the overall welfare will or will not be updated by tampering with it, turns to be the open discussion. Mill later argued that the prevention of harm is crucial but not enough to justify liberty restriction.

However, one cannot just seize there and have an assumption that Mill is making things to be so simple because he does not. In any case, the discussion of the harm principle has to be stopped, whatever the individuals want to do so long to one is interfered with, problems arise. One of the issues that might arise is what to do with individuals who are looking towards ending their own life. Mill would claim that it will not be reasonable for such an action to occur (Lombardi, Miyagishima, and Veneziani 2016, 2183).

To make more sense, three basic ideas are helping to shape the harm principle. First, the harm principle originated from another policy referred to as the principle of utility. The utility principle states that individuals should only invest in those activities that are bringing the greatest happiness to a large number of people (Saunders 2016, 1012). Therefore, when a person is tempted to decide between two different things, he should go for the option that is making most individuals happy.

Secondly, the idea of Mills arguing that there is a distinction between offense and harm. According to Mill, a crime is something that can be said is hurting personal feelings though it is not severe for an attack and needs not to be avoided since what may hurt the feelings of one person may not bother another person (Petersen 2016, 360). Harm is said that it can be anything that injures someone's rights or setting back vital interests that can post more benefits to other people. The third idea is that it is not easy for an action to affect the individual himself. Mill asserts that no individual is truly separated from others, and some activities do interfere with other individuals in means which are essential (Ambos 2015, 324).

Many ways have been considered in which an individual may know what harm amounts to and thus different means of solving the scope of the problem. However, whether people focus on introducing the moral component in damage, the plausible version of the harm principle is not arrived at. The harm principle shows more concern for the liberal values, which are essential, like tolerance and Liberty, making it accountable for its popularity among the liberal (Cohen 2018, 9).

Another aspect of the harm principle is accountability to the intuitive plausibility by saying that the only thing that is in a position to justify coercion is harm prevention. And the justification of coercion depends on the way people are affected. However, the harm principle covers the Liberty of individuals on a very shallow basis (Saunders 2016, 1009).

Even though it is not easy to pick a given community, and example in which the harm principle at the point of some seriousness has been applied. Not in the thinking to design a society in which practicability will be placed to bear easily. Mill was attempting to put into taking the proposal he had of determining and developing the human freedom limits. By indicating that is it good for an individual to think of the impacts of his deeds before it is performed.It can only be possible by embracing proper roles that are reasonable (Petersen 2016, 356).

Mill himself has a minimal scope in the harm principles application as he insists that the harm principle applies only to the maturity of the faculties of people. The harm principle does not apply to young children who are not having enough development of their faculties to act on their own as well as to think (Ambos 2015, 318). Thus, it means that the practicability and the application of the liberty principle of Mill are conditional. If the mentioned conditions are absent, the exercise of an individual's Liberty will result in harm. The way the harm principle applies to the individuals is the same as the way it applies to the community. Therefore, for the community action to be controlled by Mill's harm principle, it must transcend the stage, which is premature into the level which is civilized (Saunders 2016, 1006).

Conclusion

The idea of Harmony in society is the end product of social relationships, which is healthy while the reverse produces the harm of its crisis. The social relations which are not fit in the society, can in some means, be added up to be the outcome if either absence of a place to exercise Liberty or the excessive exercise of Liberty or the people's restrictions on their freedom is one or more aspects of the same interests within a given community (Ambos 2015, 303).

Therefore, considering the discussions above, I can conclude that Mill's harm principle can be justified. Individuals need freedom so long as they are not causing harm to anyone, and this is what Mill's harm principle is advocating for. Therefore, it helps in reducing the immorality within society and promoting good relationships among the people within an organization.

References

Ambos, K., 2015. The overall function of international criminal law: Striking the right balance between the rechtsgut and the harm principles. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 9(2), pp.301-329.

Brown, R.L., 2015. The Harm Principle and Free Speech. S. Cal. L. Rev., 89, p.953.

Cohen, A.J., 2018. Toleration and freedom from harm: Liberalism reconceived. Routledge.

Lombardi, M., Miyagishima, K., and Veneziani, R., 2016. Liberal egalitarianism and the Harm Principle. The Economic Journal, 126(597), pp.2173-2196.

Macleod, C., 2016. John Stuart Mill.

Petersen, T.S., 2016. No Offense! On the Offense Principle and Some New Challenges. Criminal Law and Philosophy, 10(2), pp.355-365.

Saunders, B., 2016. Reformulating Mill's harm principle. Mind, 125(500), pp.1005-1032.