Harm Principle

Harm Principle

Liberal idea: minimal state only time state can intervene in our lives is to prevent harm to others
1. Theft, exploitation and fraud state can intervene
2. One's own good is not a sufficient warrant
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over an individual, against his will, is to prevent harm to others"
1. Harm is physical harm only - mere offence is not sufficient
  1. A muslim who does not eat Pork cannot be 'harmed' if someone is eating pork in front of him, even if he does not agree or like it
2. This is with the exception of barbarians and children who cannot reason properly
Maximise negative liberty to ensure individuals within the state can live as they please
1. Examples such as drugs are allowed by Mill, unless they come in the form of poisons
  1. In which case, the seller is prevented from selling them only if the buyer is at risk of harm
    1. The distribution of poisons can harm people, but a lot of poisons sole purpose is not necessarily to murder someone, they have other purposes too
      1. Some poisons are harmless and useful
        Ethanol in alcohol is a cleaning ingredient as well as for pints of lager
        However, morphine in hospitals is legal, on the streets, illegal - different motivations for usage
Criticisms
1. What constitutes as harm?
  1. Mill fails to account for psychological harm and economic harm
    1. As a liberal, it seems that economic harm is not taken into consideration and does not account for redistribution of wealth
      1. With no state intervention given no harm - the poor remain poor
      2. However...
        As harm principle accounts for state intervention when the action or suffering is not at the fault of the person, the state is justified in intervention
        Which could justify redistribution if the individual were an orphan and poor
        Indeed, no fault of her own. However, if the individual were a gambler, or drug-addict, and economically harmed in that sense, it's self-inflicted and thus no justification of redistribution to "rearrange" inequalities as Rawls suggests
  2. Mill cannot justify intervention if an action may lead to physical harm - showing weakness
    1. Skinny, malnourished, homeless boy at school - bullied - leads to violence maybe?? Mill says no grounds until definite
      1. Feinburg says in his essay that the harm principle does extend to "racial slurs" and "lewdness" because they promote violence and can lead to it
2. Can harm principle really coincide with utilitarianism?
  1. If it is for the greater good, then should the state not intervene and restrain people's negative freedom?
    1. Sociologist, Emile Durkheim, highlighted the issue of negative freedom by analysing the social conditions for suicide attempts and victims
      1. For the greater good, the state should maximise more positive freedom than negative
3. How can we differentiate between self-regarding and other-regarding actions?
  1. Lord Devlin attacks Mill in this instance: our actions can affect other members of society adversely
    1. Can our actions ever just be self-regarding? No man is an island
      1. And what is the measurement of harm? Any action can affect one person - then that action may harm someone else in a different aspect - risking a domino-effect
"You can attempt to reason, persuade and remonstrate with me but you can not physically restrain me"

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von ella_coles vor mehr als 11 Jahre