John Stuart Mill Harm Principle

The harm principle, as espoused by John Stuart Mill in his 1859 text On Liberty, is perhaps one of the most important components of liberal political theory. He argues that ‘the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection.’ Certainly, the harm principle lies right at the heart of liberal individualism . This essay will analyse Mill’s conception of the harm principle and consider its caveats, taking the line of argument that, for the most part, Mill is correct in arguing that the only legitimate use of power is to prevent harm to others. Although sometimes the effectiveness of the harm principle can be limited by the need to use …show more content…
In his Very Short Introduction Book on liberalism, Michael Freeden argues that whilst there is not one single definition of liberalism, historically, one ‘layer’ of liberalism was concerned with ‘protecting individual rights’ . This, combined with the belief in a pluralism of behaviours that arises as a result of tolerance, is at the heart of Mill’s belief in the harm principle. With this understanding of the harm principle in mind, we can begin to analyse how Mill is largely correct in advocating for it. He firstly argues that ‘the only purpose can be rightfully exercised [..] is to prevent harm to others’ . Here, the ‘the necessity and sufficiency of the principle of liberty’ is established . From here we can view the harm principle in two ways: through its interpretation of the suitability of the actions of individuals and through the subsequent implications of the philosophical interpretation on the extent of state intervention. This largely follows Freeden’s differentiation of liberalism as a moral philosophy and as a political ideology . In establishing that power can only be exerted when others …show more content…
The harm principle’s influence on the tolerability of disagreeable actions dictates that if the individual must defend the rights of others he disagrees with, the state should surely follow suit. Indeed, a key principle in political liberalism is the idea that ‘respect for persons requires the state to be neutral between different conceptions of the good life’ – otherwise known as state neutrality. State neutrality is arguably an incredibly important principle for the state to follow in ensuring that the happiness of its citizens is preserved, again enabling human flourishing. As the harm principle attempts to, in a moral context, ‘isolate[s] an area of liberty within which people are uninterefered [sic] … in developing their individuality’ , this sets parameters for intervention by the state to correct perceived deficiencies in behaviour. The harm principle rightly attempts to restrict the ability of governments to act in a paternalistic or moralistic manner. For example, under the harm principle, the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibited alcohol, could be interpreted as a violation of the harm principle, for it attempts to limit the individual liberty to buy alcohol because of a moral objection, something which is counter-productive to autonomy and liberty. This has important ramifications for