Analysis Of John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

Decent Essays
Freedom comes with more responsibility and John Stuart Mill discusses the concept of liberty in numerous ways. However, The Harm Principle and freedom of action are two topics of Mill’s substantial opinions regarding to liberty. The Mill's Harm Principle provides individuals with the liberty to express all opinions, and act as one pleases, but unfortunately not enough to maintain a balanced society. Therefore, I disagree with the idea of Harm Principle, due to unable to implement what should be one's fundamental morals and values amongst people. Government laws were enacted for a reason in addition I will demonstrate why Mill’s principle is not acceptable for our society. Not everyone shares the same definition of Harm which could potentially …show more content…
There are countless loopholes to this ideology, such as psychological harm, and I believe people would find a way to abuse this freedom and society has tried to express power over the individual. The Harm Principle allows to pleases the individual as long as it does not cause anyone harm, seems to be common sense on the surface, but it goes in greater depth. Most laws that attempt to govern personal behavior may seem to be an overreach, but I have found that there is another layer that is not sufficiently discussed. One example, that questions Mill’s theory is the drug laws. There are arguments made that it is a person’s choice to use drugs and criminalizing drugs is an infringement on personal liberty. A person sitting in their home doing drugs does not "harm" anyone else, however problem with that argument is that the home drug use is not the end of the story. One thing leads to another therefore, many times the drug use leads to addiction, the addiction leads to crime in …show more content…
Everyone deserves to have the freedom to be who they want and live their life according to their own sets of values. Liberty now in days is how much control society has in preventing or allowing the actions of a person. However, not many people are seeing the reason behind it of “why?” they are being prevented. Unfortunately, we do not live in a utopian society where everyone’s priority is to better our society. The Harm Principle promotes a valid philosophy in the sense that every person does make mistakes and do need to learn from them, but sometimes persons’ mistake can hurt others. In a perfect world, Mill’s Harm Principle may be a little bit more applicable, but that is not the case it would not be remotely possible to have a functional society if laws were not enforced. Freedom comes with more responsibilities, but not everyone is responsible enough to own up to their own

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Recall Huemer’s earlier argument: while drugs only possibly result in harm to others, there are several legal ways in which one can actually harm others; therefore, drugs should not be prohibited. This argument conflicts with another claim of Huemer’s. He concedes that it is the business of the state to prohibit driving under the influence of drugs. But, like drug use, driving under the influence only introduces the possibility of harm to others. At least in some cases, Huemer evidently believes that the government should regulate risky behavior, even if there may not be negative consequences.…

    • 704 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Along with this disagreement comes the topic of too much freedom. Some may say if a country tolerates drugs to be legal then the people will continue to want more freedom. Legalization of drugs may lead to other heinous crimes becoming legal as well. Would all this legalization go against the harm principle and somehow lead to direct harm down the road? Possibly.…

    • 1497 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    The concept of free speech is heavily debated in the media. It is human nature to laud our superiority over others, and with free speech, the results are people, who may not be smarter, trying to put down others and push their opinion on them. Free speech is vital for the health of our society but it most definitely needs limits too. In a perfect world freedom of speech would be allowed up until the point when you are purposely hurting and offending people, but it would be impractical to legislate this. Inciting violence and infringement of the law such Blasphemy, are examples of the limitations.…

    • 1244 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    In contrast, Michael Levin advocates in favor of the latter ideology. He does not argue that torture should be used casually, rather his argument stems from the premise that nations should not be so quick to ban torture in every single circumstance. His primary rhetorical strategy is to use hypothetical extremes to prove his point, in addition, he also appeals to emotion to evoke a sense towards Utilitarianism to justify torture in certain cases. His primary downfall in his argument was that many of his hypothetical have yet to be seen in real life, in light of this, it may delegitimize his argument in certain people’s minds. Gushee’s argument was particularly effective because of his employment of historical…

    • 1246 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Although we have many rights, we unknowingly give many of them up to our political society; our government. One government, however, cannot guarantee safety and self-preservation to all its subjects through the “social contract” Hobbes adheres to. They must pick and choose who is worthy of this even if everyone has innate rights. This judgment is not dictated by one’s loyalty to the government, instead, it is motivated by self-interest and prejudice that constantly fluctuates from leader to leader who decides what group or individual has freedom. Therefore, even if Hobbes hoped for a more submissive constituent that only questions government in result to a direct threat of life, this cannot be the case in our current political time.…

    • 1147 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Hard Work Research Paper

    • 1749 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Convincing yourself that everything will work out may alleviate stress, however, it takes away your freedom to act upon your circumstances. Likewise living life in a pessimistic way is unhealthy. A little pessimism can be good, but living life expecting the worst of everything cannot be a good way to live. I argue that instead, we should take control of our own destinies. Instead of living pessimistically or optimistically, we should make our own views.…

    • 1749 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Law and morality have been a debate for many people throughout centuries and finding how they interconnect and whether they should at all. Some theorists such as John Stuart Mill, believe that morality has nothing to do with law and that harm to others is the only valid reason to limit someone’s freedom. Others believe that morality is something that cannot be separate from law because protecting those just from harm is insufficient. There are other things that the law protects besides just harm such as speed limits, marriage, and more. Those such as Devlin and Dworkin both believe that morality is a part of law but have different judgments of the way morality for a society should be chosen.…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    People with certain perspective, race, culture, and religion may not have similar principles as to which we all are not the same. However we all follow the law and rules that are regulated. Culture and religion influences one another. I think people learn ethically by their belief to have a certain attitude and they tend to put stress on issues like authority plus freedom. Society doesn’t need to take responsibility but the individual who is at fault should take the consequence for their own unethical actions.…

    • 1083 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    For example, Tom Robinson’s conviction, the murder of Bob Ewell, and so on. It showed me that doing what is ethically right can sometimes lead to the breaking of a rule or a law. The lesson on the importance of moral education matters because everyone needs to have a moral conscience; otherwise, people would be inhumane and selfish beings. Moreover, the justice system cannot always act as a guide for what is right and wrong because in some cases what is illegal is ethically acceptable. Also, it seems that everyone shares the opinion that social status is no way of determining who is guilty, but what tends to happen is that people with more money get away with more crimes.…

    • 1051 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If violated mores weren’t so strict with there consequences, the world would probably be a disaster. A lot of people violate mores, but knowing the consequences that happens when you violate it makes people not want to do violate mores. Mores make societies a better and peaceful place. Apart from mores values are also important to society because they shape who we are and who we will become. Values influence us in everyway; without values we wouldn’t know what it is that we want.…

    • 1232 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays