Holden Caulfield
21st April 2009, 14:55
Does the ‘harm principle’ provide us with a satisfactory criterion for deciding whether people’s freedoms should be limited?
“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”
The above quotation is J.S. Mill’s famous ‘very simple principle’ (also known as the harm principal), however under scrutiny we find it is, in fact, far from ‘simple’, and in this essay we shall discuss its strengths, the issues it raises, and come to a conclusion on whether it is a satisfactory principle on which to limit freedom. It is important to note that in this essay we shall not deal with Mill’s use of the term ‘civilized society’ or any connotations this may bear, partly due to this being irrelevant to today and partly due to the dated racial-chauvinism it represents.
The principle has many strengths, on the most basic level, for example, one would not argue that one should be free to commit acts of murder, this can be seen as a giving up a liberty for the sake of liberty; ‘I do not murder, therefore I am not murdered’ being the thinking behind it. Without certain limits to freedom we, as a species, would be plunged back to Hobbes ‘state of nature’ where our lives would be “nasty, brutish, and short”, and so limiting freedom is very attractive to us. At first look it appears highly reasonable that I should not be afforded the liberty to infringe upon the liberty of others; to ‘maximise’ my freedom it is logical that the freedom of others in my community also be afforded the same protections and freedoms as I, this again works on the premise of ‘I do not wish to be robbed, therefore I do not rob’, the equality of this ‘simple principle’ is a very strong point to justify its application.
Although being self-proclaimed as simple, this ‘harm principle’ reaches difficulty when one tries to define what ‘harm’ definitively constitutes. One can claim that there are two ‘main types’ of harm: ‘Private Harm’, being harm specifically to another person, such as assault, rape, mugging etc; And ‘Public Harm’ being harm that affect groups, or communities indirectly, this would include such acts as fly tipping, or burning your rubbish, or vandalism of public property. The label ‘harm’ can also be justifiably attributed to taking undue risks; these acts of harm would include keeping a dangerous animal as a pet, speeding, etc. These acts are harmful due to their possibility of causing great harm, the freedom to own a pit-bull dog is negated by the amount of danger this poses to others in a community.
Mill would argue that “[to limit freedom for one’s] own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”. The actions of an individual even those which cause the person harm, as long as they do not affect others, cannot be intervened in by any authority adhering to the ‘harm principle’. If I were to decide to become an alcoholic, no matter how morally or physically destructive others may view this as being, no matter if they feel to intervene would be in my best interests, they could not find justification in the harm principle. Similarly if one consents to being harmed by another, then this is merely an expression of my liberty, and not the concern of others, examples would be if one was a boxer, or enjoyed sadomasochistic acts. These acts do not affect others, and so the ‘very simple principle, would defend ones right to partake in them, paternalism was labelled by Kant as: ”The greatest despotism imaginable”.
Unlike the black and white arguments in favour of not murdering, stealing etc, the justification for individual liberty and the right to ‘self harm’ is built on far less solid foundations. Mill appears to assume that humans can act without affecting others, this is folly. To demonstrate this point there are several examples which undermine Mill’s ‘simple principle’: Firstly my freedom to try heroin is protected under the ‘harm principle’, however as a highly addictive drug the risks of trying it are great to myself, risks I might not have fully considered. The analogy of Odysseus and the sirens is fitting here, knowing that they would lure him to injury or death, which would have considerable affects on his liberty, he had his liberty removed and was tied to the mast. This minor loss of liberty, in itself prevented a much greater loss of liberty. Secondly, and to stick with the same example, if I take heroin, this could be injurious by example, a younger sibling, or a friend may follow my lead and by this, my deed would directly affect another. My heroin use could affect my health, causing great stress to family members, and otherwise needless strain on the health service and/or social services. To summarise this point, it is safe to state that, in society nobody in entirely isolated, and therefore will impact directly or indirectly upon others. Another argument would be that although I enjoy S&M, the availability and prevalence of violent pornography lead to an increase in violent sex attacks, ergo this would greatly affect the victims of such attacks, on this basis one would assume the harm principal would call for the censorship of such acts, however it does not.
A grey area of Mill’s principle arises over his own seemingly contradictory view of the freedoms of expression and speech. Mill states:
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, [...] mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”
This ‘liberal’ view seems to be sufficient to fit into Mill’s principle, it allows for competition between differing ideas and it means no truth can be imposed upon another, or asserted without being questioned. However this would allow the spread of racist propaganda to the working classes, who through societal alienation and poor education may support these views. Although not directly harming anybody this propaganda material could trigger racial divisions, tensions, and violence, something which causes both public and private harm. The suppression of Copernicus was wrong according to the harm principal, and I would agree, but his work did not create circumstances where great harm could be caused. If Mill was to follow his own simple principle, perhaps he would call for the freedom of expression, but only to the limit that it does not incite harm towards the liberty of others.
Mill uses an example of a mob outside a corn dealer’s home, the orator inciting the people would directly affect the liberty of the corn dealer according to Mill, and his freedom of speech would not be justified by Mill. This protects the corn dealer, who has exploited workers labour to create profit, and who is creating circumstances for this mob to gather, perhaps through high prices, but it condemns the people who challenge this in the pursuit of their own liberty. This is because Mill was a man of his times, as part of the petit-bourgeois he defends property rights, and the exploitative nature of capitalism, however he would condemn , for example, the distribution of revolutionary communist propaganda to angry protesters.
Mill supports competition between businesses, the core element of capitalism, therefore he would say that if one multinational company forces another local shop to close it causes no ‘harm’. This seems fair under the capitalist system, however if one considers how the company made its profits, the incorporated support for private property, the exploitation of labour involved, and the expropriation of wealth involved, it would appear that capitalism directly contravenes the concept behind Mill’s theory of liberty. As Mill’s theory stands it perpetuates the condition of those in the 3rd world, and would support the continuing existence of ‘wage slavery’, both of which are severe limiters on the liberty of the global and domestic majority. Had he supported the struggle for liberty and equality his theory would be less convoluted, however, as mentioned, he is partially blindfolded by strong class bias. Mill concept of ‘liberty’ brings to mind Anatole France’s criticism of law:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread"
Mill’s ‘harm principle’ also fails to fully explain if one should be expected to pro-actively aid one who is in need: should one pay large taxes and support wealth distribution, should one try to save a drowning man. For these issues Mill leaves us wanting, and leaves us with only our own subjective moral compass for answers.
James Fitzjames Stephens makes the following criticism of Mill: “having [...] fully and carefully enunciated his doctrine, Mr. Mill never attempts to prove it, as a whole [... this] proves that his principle requires further limitations than he has thought necessary to express”. I agree with Stephens, the concept of a criterion for limiting freedom based on harm could be satisfactory, however Mill’s ‘harm principle’ falls short of this due to large ‘grey areas’, class bias, and certain features which appear to contradict his starting concept.
Bibliography
Bain, Alexander (1969) ‘John Stuart Mill: A Criticism’ New York: Augusts M. Kelly Publishers
France, Anatole (1894) ‘Le Lys Rouge’ France: Calmann-Levy Publishers
Hobbes, Thomas (1996) ‘Leviathan’ Oxford: University Press
Lindsay, A.D, (ed.) (1964) ‘Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government’ London: Dent
Paine, Thomas (1995) ‘Rights of Man, Common Sense, and Other Political Writings’ Oxford: University Press
Steven, James Fitzjames (1967) ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ Cambridge: University Press
Stojar, Samuel (1984) ‘An Analysis of Rights’ London: MacMillan Press
Thomson, David (ed.) (1970) ‘Political Ideals’ London: C. Nicholls & Company Ltd
Wolff, Jonathan (2006) ‘Introduction to Political Philosophy’ Oxford: University Press
Fuck you all who diss my lack of punctuation on revleft posts.
“That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”
The above quotation is J.S. Mill’s famous ‘very simple principle’ (also known as the harm principal), however under scrutiny we find it is, in fact, far from ‘simple’, and in this essay we shall discuss its strengths, the issues it raises, and come to a conclusion on whether it is a satisfactory principle on which to limit freedom. It is important to note that in this essay we shall not deal with Mill’s use of the term ‘civilized society’ or any connotations this may bear, partly due to this being irrelevant to today and partly due to the dated racial-chauvinism it represents.
The principle has many strengths, on the most basic level, for example, one would not argue that one should be free to commit acts of murder, this can be seen as a giving up a liberty for the sake of liberty; ‘I do not murder, therefore I am not murdered’ being the thinking behind it. Without certain limits to freedom we, as a species, would be plunged back to Hobbes ‘state of nature’ where our lives would be “nasty, brutish, and short”, and so limiting freedom is very attractive to us. At first look it appears highly reasonable that I should not be afforded the liberty to infringe upon the liberty of others; to ‘maximise’ my freedom it is logical that the freedom of others in my community also be afforded the same protections and freedoms as I, this again works on the premise of ‘I do not wish to be robbed, therefore I do not rob’, the equality of this ‘simple principle’ is a very strong point to justify its application.
Although being self-proclaimed as simple, this ‘harm principle’ reaches difficulty when one tries to define what ‘harm’ definitively constitutes. One can claim that there are two ‘main types’ of harm: ‘Private Harm’, being harm specifically to another person, such as assault, rape, mugging etc; And ‘Public Harm’ being harm that affect groups, or communities indirectly, this would include such acts as fly tipping, or burning your rubbish, or vandalism of public property. The label ‘harm’ can also be justifiably attributed to taking undue risks; these acts of harm would include keeping a dangerous animal as a pet, speeding, etc. These acts are harmful due to their possibility of causing great harm, the freedom to own a pit-bull dog is negated by the amount of danger this poses to others in a community.
Mill would argue that “[to limit freedom for one’s] own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”. The actions of an individual even those which cause the person harm, as long as they do not affect others, cannot be intervened in by any authority adhering to the ‘harm principle’. If I were to decide to become an alcoholic, no matter how morally or physically destructive others may view this as being, no matter if they feel to intervene would be in my best interests, they could not find justification in the harm principle. Similarly if one consents to being harmed by another, then this is merely an expression of my liberty, and not the concern of others, examples would be if one was a boxer, or enjoyed sadomasochistic acts. These acts do not affect others, and so the ‘very simple principle, would defend ones right to partake in them, paternalism was labelled by Kant as: ”The greatest despotism imaginable”.
Unlike the black and white arguments in favour of not murdering, stealing etc, the justification for individual liberty and the right to ‘self harm’ is built on far less solid foundations. Mill appears to assume that humans can act without affecting others, this is folly. To demonstrate this point there are several examples which undermine Mill’s ‘simple principle’: Firstly my freedom to try heroin is protected under the ‘harm principle’, however as a highly addictive drug the risks of trying it are great to myself, risks I might not have fully considered. The analogy of Odysseus and the sirens is fitting here, knowing that they would lure him to injury or death, which would have considerable affects on his liberty, he had his liberty removed and was tied to the mast. This minor loss of liberty, in itself prevented a much greater loss of liberty. Secondly, and to stick with the same example, if I take heroin, this could be injurious by example, a younger sibling, or a friend may follow my lead and by this, my deed would directly affect another. My heroin use could affect my health, causing great stress to family members, and otherwise needless strain on the health service and/or social services. To summarise this point, it is safe to state that, in society nobody in entirely isolated, and therefore will impact directly or indirectly upon others. Another argument would be that although I enjoy S&M, the availability and prevalence of violent pornography lead to an increase in violent sex attacks, ergo this would greatly affect the victims of such attacks, on this basis one would assume the harm principal would call for the censorship of such acts, however it does not.
A grey area of Mill’s principle arises over his own seemingly contradictory view of the freedoms of expression and speech. Mill states:
“If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, [...] mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind”
This ‘liberal’ view seems to be sufficient to fit into Mill’s principle, it allows for competition between differing ideas and it means no truth can be imposed upon another, or asserted without being questioned. However this would allow the spread of racist propaganda to the working classes, who through societal alienation and poor education may support these views. Although not directly harming anybody this propaganda material could trigger racial divisions, tensions, and violence, something which causes both public and private harm. The suppression of Copernicus was wrong according to the harm principal, and I would agree, but his work did not create circumstances where great harm could be caused. If Mill was to follow his own simple principle, perhaps he would call for the freedom of expression, but only to the limit that it does not incite harm towards the liberty of others.
Mill uses an example of a mob outside a corn dealer’s home, the orator inciting the people would directly affect the liberty of the corn dealer according to Mill, and his freedom of speech would not be justified by Mill. This protects the corn dealer, who has exploited workers labour to create profit, and who is creating circumstances for this mob to gather, perhaps through high prices, but it condemns the people who challenge this in the pursuit of their own liberty. This is because Mill was a man of his times, as part of the petit-bourgeois he defends property rights, and the exploitative nature of capitalism, however he would condemn , for example, the distribution of revolutionary communist propaganda to angry protesters.
Mill supports competition between businesses, the core element of capitalism, therefore he would say that if one multinational company forces another local shop to close it causes no ‘harm’. This seems fair under the capitalist system, however if one considers how the company made its profits, the incorporated support for private property, the exploitation of labour involved, and the expropriation of wealth involved, it would appear that capitalism directly contravenes the concept behind Mill’s theory of liberty. As Mill’s theory stands it perpetuates the condition of those in the 3rd world, and would support the continuing existence of ‘wage slavery’, both of which are severe limiters on the liberty of the global and domestic majority. Had he supported the struggle for liberty and equality his theory would be less convoluted, however, as mentioned, he is partially blindfolded by strong class bias. Mill concept of ‘liberty’ brings to mind Anatole France’s criticism of law:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike, to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread"
Mill’s ‘harm principle’ also fails to fully explain if one should be expected to pro-actively aid one who is in need: should one pay large taxes and support wealth distribution, should one try to save a drowning man. For these issues Mill leaves us wanting, and leaves us with only our own subjective moral compass for answers.
James Fitzjames Stephens makes the following criticism of Mill: “having [...] fully and carefully enunciated his doctrine, Mr. Mill never attempts to prove it, as a whole [... this] proves that his principle requires further limitations than he has thought necessary to express”. I agree with Stephens, the concept of a criterion for limiting freedom based on harm could be satisfactory, however Mill’s ‘harm principle’ falls short of this due to large ‘grey areas’, class bias, and certain features which appear to contradict his starting concept.
Bibliography
Bain, Alexander (1969) ‘John Stuart Mill: A Criticism’ New York: Augusts M. Kelly Publishers
France, Anatole (1894) ‘Le Lys Rouge’ France: Calmann-Levy Publishers
Hobbes, Thomas (1996) ‘Leviathan’ Oxford: University Press
Lindsay, A.D, (ed.) (1964) ‘Utilitarianism, Liberty and Representative Government’ London: Dent
Paine, Thomas (1995) ‘Rights of Man, Common Sense, and Other Political Writings’ Oxford: University Press
Steven, James Fitzjames (1967) ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ Cambridge: University Press
Stojar, Samuel (1984) ‘An Analysis of Rights’ London: MacMillan Press
Thomson, David (ed.) (1970) ‘Political Ideals’ London: C. Nicholls & Company Ltd
Wolff, Jonathan (2006) ‘Introduction to Political Philosophy’ Oxford: University Press
Fuck you all who diss my lack of punctuation on revleft posts.