John Stuart Mill The Harm Principle Analysis

John Stuart Mill discusses his theory on human nature in On Liberty. Mill portrayed his belief of the Harm Principle, which can be presented as the following: as long as one’s actions are not harming another person, the government nor society should intrude. The Harm Principle also protects the three basic liberties of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to pursue tastes. Mill believes that the government should have the interests and opinions of the public in mind. On top of that, Mill feels as though an oppressed opinion results in a loss for society because even if an opinion is false, it may have some truth to it, and unless the opinion is voiced, the truth will never be heard. Every opinion should be argued against because …show more content…
The veil of ignorance would mean that no one could be held back by any predestined misfortune he or she may suffer from. Behind the veil of ignorance, every person in society would be equal because they would not be aware of their class status, social position, wealth, attributes, gender, or race, although this is a completely hypothetical society. This can also be considered as the original position, similar to but still different from, the human state of nature. Since no one would know all of these circumstances, no one would be able to determine where they will end up in society, and that would result in everyone making decisions, which would be fair for all. This society would be much more generalized, rather than being catered to each individual’s own situation. Rawls believes in justice as fairness, meaning that a just society is when everything is ‘fair’ for its inhabitants, although it can be uncertain what ‘fair’ really is. Rawls also believes that everyone in society should be concerned about each other’s wellness, looking out for each other and encouraging each other to do what is right, rather than what is wrong. Rawls idea of the original position and the veil of ignorance is meant so that any individual can understand the perspective, since every single person would be unaware of their circumstances in …show more content…
Mill and Rawls both have a belief on the right to the basic liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of action, and freedom of assembly. Although Mill believes in society doing what is best for the majority, Rawls considers the fact there must be principles created to regulate the actions of each individual. Their theories both give humans the right to their own bodies, and to pursue what ever they would like to do, since every individual should be privileged to make the decisions that they please for their own selves. Similarities can be seen among the two, both seeing a just society. They both disagree with the idea of conformity, seeing as they promote individuality and the right to do as one