Often times the terms we don’t know who to fault when it comes to limits of legitimate law making. The terms “harm principle” and “legal paternalism” never come to mind when we are seeking these answers. This is remarkably ironic because both of those terms justify laws. In this essay i will go into depth on each term and provide examples of how they justify law and human morality.
John Stewart Mill, inadvertently created the term Harm Principle in his essay On Liberty, where he defends extensive individual liberty. In chapter one, he introduces the principle that he claims firmly believes in; the Harm Principle. In the paper he bases his idea of this principle on ideas of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the “view that the morally right …show more content…
This was because he believed that society would be most benefitted when the good that someone caused would also benefit everybody else. Mills was especially concerned with democracy because although technically democracy was a system where people ruled the government, it was really a democratic republic where the majority ruled over the people. This could cause the problem of the "tyranny of the majority." Mills thought that this could be harmful because the majority could believe that what they were doing in the government and what they were decided was the best for everyone. However, in many cases, this is not always true. Sometimes the majority could be harming a minority group because they think that it was in the best interest of society as a whole. In fact, Mill brings up an argument between two interferences , the majoritarian interference and paternalistic interference. Based on the definitions of those types of interference, we often don’t look at these two concepts as being an interference. These can often be seen and/or thought of as the basic and normal functions of society in everyday life. The paternalistic interference is based on the choices that something is good for that individual. The majoritarian interference is based on the choices that goes against “views, values and/or preferences of the majority” (Rosati, Lecture 1.2, …show more content…
As I have seen direct, on the grounds that somebody is a grown-up doesn't mean they're savvy enough to know what’s in their own particular best advantage. While it is hard to manage individuals in light of what others believe is brilliant or in a people best advantage, Dworkin comprehends that there are substantial borders where paternalism can be helpful. His cases of individuals who don't completely measure the results of their activities or comprehend the every single conceivable result and the gravity of them are things that impact individuals day by day.
Mills and Dworkin created numerous ideas that still relate to the present society. The Harm Principle and Legal Paternalism is truly attempting to put the welfare of people above everything else. These two ideas not only justify laws but also justify how we live our lives, we as humans don’t really know how to live a life outside of laws. Thus, making these two ideas, relatable because they are situations that we experience in our everyday lives, things that happen to us daily. We use a least one if not more of these ideas a day to ration with our conscious, conforming us to obey and justify
John Stewart Mill, inadvertently created the term Harm Principle in his essay On Liberty, where he defends extensive individual liberty. In chapter one, he introduces the principle that he claims firmly believes in; the Harm Principle. In the paper he bases his idea of this principle on ideas of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is the “view that the morally right …show more content…
This was because he believed that society would be most benefitted when the good that someone caused would also benefit everybody else. Mills was especially concerned with democracy because although technically democracy was a system where people ruled the government, it was really a democratic republic where the majority ruled over the people. This could cause the problem of the "tyranny of the majority." Mills thought that this could be harmful because the majority could believe that what they were doing in the government and what they were decided was the best for everyone. However, in many cases, this is not always true. Sometimes the majority could be harming a minority group because they think that it was in the best interest of society as a whole. In fact, Mill brings up an argument between two interferences , the majoritarian interference and paternalistic interference. Based on the definitions of those types of interference, we often don’t look at these two concepts as being an interference. These can often be seen and/or thought of as the basic and normal functions of society in everyday life. The paternalistic interference is based on the choices that something is good for that individual. The majoritarian interference is based on the choices that goes against “views, values and/or preferences of the majority” (Rosati, Lecture 1.2, …show more content…
As I have seen direct, on the grounds that somebody is a grown-up doesn't mean they're savvy enough to know what’s in their own particular best advantage. While it is hard to manage individuals in light of what others believe is brilliant or in a people best advantage, Dworkin comprehends that there are substantial borders where paternalism can be helpful. His cases of individuals who don't completely measure the results of their activities or comprehend the every single conceivable result and the gravity of them are things that impact individuals day by day.
Mills and Dworkin created numerous ideas that still relate to the present society. The Harm Principle and Legal Paternalism is truly attempting to put the welfare of people above everything else. These two ideas not only justify laws but also justify how we live our lives, we as humans don’t really know how to live a life outside of laws. Thus, making these two ideas, relatable because they are situations that we experience in our everyday lives, things that happen to us daily. We use a least one if not more of these ideas a day to ration with our conscious, conforming us to obey and justify