(1) Does Mill’s harm principle permit suicide and other self-harming activities?
Word Count: 1555
I begin by providing a description of the kinds of tyranny that worried Mill and the introduction of his Harm Principle as his solution. I then proceed by discussing the suicide of the individual as it relates to the harming of others. I argue that there are circumstances in which the individual may commit suicide which is consistent with the harm principle even if it causes harm to others. I do this by appealing to Mill’s views on utility and the unavoidability of causing harm in some circumstances. The suicide and self-harming of an individual in isolation is then considered. I believe that Mill’s omission of children from the …show more content…
The first kind of tyranny is political tyranny, which can be defined in terms of the state exerting power over the individual in such a way as to encroach upon or violate their liberty. For instance, government spy programmes targeting their citizens may be viewed as intruding upon their right to privacy. A more extreme example would be the torture of an individual for explicitly opposing state policies in order to quash dissent. Secondly, social tyranny is when a majority of persons in society use their power and influence as a majority to impose upon a minority their opinions and feelings. This can be done through political pressure, coercion through the norms and customs of that society, or religious oppression (Mill, 1985). The Harm Principle entails that interfering with the liberty of the individual without consent is only legitimate if in so doing it prevents harm to others, that is, in self-defence. Mill further …show more content…
A clear instance of where it would not be permissible would be an individual carrying out a suicidal terrorist act that took the lives of others. This infringes upon the victims’ sovereignty and would cause the death and suffering of many. This would directly violate the Harm Principle and as such is not permissible. It would appear that in less severe instances of suicide such as those that do not lead to the death of others but only harm others are also not permissible. Consider the case of Smith, a father with a loving family that decides he will commit suicide. Regardless of the motivations for why Smith decides to commit suicide, prima facie, the Harm Principle would forbid such an act as it harms others. However, I do not believe that this is strictly true as Mill’s views on utility provide justification for the permissibility of suicide that affect others in some situations (Mill 1985). The kind of situation I will now present is one in which harm is unavoidable. Imagine that Smith by committing suicide prevents some counterfactual situation in which a greater evil harms his family (Menzies, 2017). Perhaps he is indebted to a violent group of persons and his suicide prevents the deaths of his loved ones. Not only does Smith thereby save the lives of his family but he does so of his own volition and prevents a greater evil. I
Word Count: 1555
I begin by providing a description of the kinds of tyranny that worried Mill and the introduction of his Harm Principle as his solution. I then proceed by discussing the suicide of the individual as it relates to the harming of others. I argue that there are circumstances in which the individual may commit suicide which is consistent with the harm principle even if it causes harm to others. I do this by appealing to Mill’s views on utility and the unavoidability of causing harm in some circumstances. The suicide and self-harming of an individual in isolation is then considered. I believe that Mill’s omission of children from the …show more content…
The first kind of tyranny is political tyranny, which can be defined in terms of the state exerting power over the individual in such a way as to encroach upon or violate their liberty. For instance, government spy programmes targeting their citizens may be viewed as intruding upon their right to privacy. A more extreme example would be the torture of an individual for explicitly opposing state policies in order to quash dissent. Secondly, social tyranny is when a majority of persons in society use their power and influence as a majority to impose upon a minority their opinions and feelings. This can be done through political pressure, coercion through the norms and customs of that society, or religious oppression (Mill, 1985). The Harm Principle entails that interfering with the liberty of the individual without consent is only legitimate if in so doing it prevents harm to others, that is, in self-defence. Mill further …show more content…
A clear instance of where it would not be permissible would be an individual carrying out a suicidal terrorist act that took the lives of others. This infringes upon the victims’ sovereignty and would cause the death and suffering of many. This would directly violate the Harm Principle and as such is not permissible. It would appear that in less severe instances of suicide such as those that do not lead to the death of others but only harm others are also not permissible. Consider the case of Smith, a father with a loving family that decides he will commit suicide. Regardless of the motivations for why Smith decides to commit suicide, prima facie, the Harm Principle would forbid such an act as it harms others. However, I do not believe that this is strictly true as Mill’s views on utility provide justification for the permissibility of suicide that affect others in some situations (Mill 1985). The kind of situation I will now present is one in which harm is unavoidable. Imagine that Smith by committing suicide prevents some counterfactual situation in which a greater evil harms his family (Menzies, 2017). Perhaps he is indebted to a violent group of persons and his suicide prevents the deaths of his loved ones. Not only does Smith thereby save the lives of his family but he does so of his own volition and prevents a greater evil. I