Analysis Of The Harm Principle

This paper discusses the harm principle and the sovereignty principle. It questions the harm principle validity on the grounds that some harm seems to be allowable, even though the principle denies man the right to harm another and then criticizes the sovereignty principle for being too broad. This paper concludes that the harm principle is the better of the two principles to base a legal system on, as it allows for more liberty than the sovereignty principle.
The Harm Principle Mill claims that his harm principle would protect human liberty. The harm principle is a rule to deal with how people act towards each other and how the law effects the population of the polis(Mill,68-74). This does not include children or barbarians(ibid). The principle …show more content…
It follows that when faced with two harms you should take the lesser of the two as this would less any damage to your wellbeing. This lesser harm would not be considered harm, as it actually benefits your wellbeing, at least in comparison to the other harm. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that in the thought experiment the person wanted to cross the street with a car coming at them, hence pulling them back would not undermine their liberty, as it was never their intention to increase their wellbeing by doing that task. Hence, the only harm done in the thought experiment is the pain of pulling someone out of the way. This pain is less than that of collision with a car. Thus, although there are times when harms are allowable, these helpful harms do not qualify as harms traditionally as they actually promote wellbeing. Since they do, these harms are allowable under the harm principle since they are not actually harms. Thus, the attack on the harm principle earlier is invalid as it is an idea that is already compatible with the harm …show more content…
This is because the sovereignty principle is too broad. As shown above the sovereignty principle would constrict our actions on many activities that we would not regularly consider illegal. Hence, the broadness allows for too many things to restricted, and hence restricts our liberty more than it has to. On the other hand, the harm principle only restricts harm. Harm is easier to define, and as such does not express the same problem. Thus, the harm principle will not restrict our liberty to the same level as the sovereignty principle. Therefore, the harm principle is preferable to the sovereignty principle as a guide to our legal