Summary
Summary IB Philosophy "On Liberty" by Mill Themes notes
The document includes notes on all themes in "On Liberty" by Mill. The notes include quotes, summaries, and analysis for each theme.
[Show more]
Connected book
Book Title:
Author(s):
- Edition:
- ISBN:
- Edition:
Content preview
The Harm PrinciplePrivate and Public Domain
Private domain: The part of life ‘in which it is chiefly the individual that is interested’. Conduct which affects only our
own interests. Self-regarding actions. No interference is justified in the cases of rational adults (those of ‘full age’ and
an ‘ordinary amount of understanding’).
Public domain: “the part (of life) which chiefly interests society”. The state and society can intervene in cases where
other-regarding actions cause harm: ‘As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of
others, society has jurisdiction over it.’ Acts which affect people’s constituted rights are punishable by law.
Support negative liberty, freedom from interference.
It doesn’t apply to: Children, ‘Barbarian’. Not in the maturity of their faculties, not reason.
Why proposed?
Safeguard against increasing level of interference from the tyranny of the majority on the life of the individual and
overly paternalistic state.
Ensures one can pursue own interests as far as possible.
It is a principle which serves to enable almost complete liberty for the individual.
Utilitarian purpose for individual development and overall social progress “utility in the largest sense, grounded on the
permanent interests of man as a progressive being”
Instrumentally valuable to individual and society.
What constitutes harm?
“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercises over any member of a civilised community, against his
will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant”
Two types of harms:
Harm to interests - Should be punished by opinion “punished by opinion”
Harm to rights/injures – Should be punished by law
However, when harm is done in the private sphere no punishment is taken in consideration. “affects the interests of no
person besides himself”
Harm to other is the sole limit on one’s liberty.
“injuring the interests of one another, or rather certain interests which, either by express legal provision or tacit
understanding, ought to be considered as rights”
Public opinion may regulate conduct “without going to let the lengths of violating any of their constitute rights” as far
the individual is only interfering their interests.
Harm also linked to failure to fulfil duties “they are only a subject or moral reprobation when they involve a breach of
duty to others”
When one has “infringed the rules necessary for the protection of his fellow creatures”
Omissions are included alongside harmful actions, where failing to do certain things causes harm.
Not counted as harm: offence, self-harm, consent to harm, private affairs.
Harm and offence:
Mill states that one’s interest in not being offended is simply not the same of one’s interests in not being physically
damaged, deceived ecc. Offence is not harm against out will.
Natural penalties will inevitably stem instead towards offensive behaviour.
,Harm and state intervention:
It states a necessary but not a sufficient condition for interfering with people’s actions.
Society should only interfere with someone’s actions when they cause harm and when interfering with them is in the
general interest.
Bases on utilitarian grounds as competition is good for social progress.
Explain Mill’s Harm Principle in its account of the limit of society’s authority over the individual
= Harm principle in relation to what society can or can’t do
• POINT 1) Define the harm principle. Use key quotes from Mill.
• Divide the principal into its 2 aspects:
1. Interference by society if harm to others is caused or foreseen
2. No interference in elf regarding actions; “the individual is sovereign”
Society can intervene when harm to interest. Can result in social punishment; punishment by opinion.
State cannot intervene.
• Society can persuade but not coerce; encourage the development of virtues; ostracise those with
disagreeable attitudes; warn others against them
• When harm to interest is done, but society’s interreference is not warranted. E.g Scholarship that can
harm interests of those who do not receive it. (CH. 5)
• There are cases where harm is allowed in favour of the greater good
Harm is a necessary not a sufficient condition.
• Why must social interference be limited?
• To allow liberty, which allows individualism, which allows utility and truth to emerge and society to
progress. (Utilitarian argument)
• To allow perfectionist growth of the individual’s rationality (Perfectionist argument)
• A safeguard against the tyranny of the majority
Examples:
At the end of Ch.4 for wrongful social interference. Often, Mill references Christianity (he says that to
impose it on people is a form of tyranny of the majority).
Analysis:
• Can we always distinguish between self-regarding and other regarding? In many cases, actions are
not purely self-regarding as they can have direct/indirect effect on the public. Perhaps, this should
warrant society’s interference.
• Is social interference by ‘punishment by opinion’ comparable to bullying? How is it different to the
tyranny of the majority? Those that disagree by opinion are imposing their opinion on the dissenter.
• Can punishment by opinion be psychologically damaging. It is unescapable, perhaps worse so than
legal punishment.
• Paternalism: not everybody is able to manage their life successfully. Not everybody wishes to have
complete liberty. Is Mill making the assumption that everyone in society wants liberty like he does?
Is he overly optimistic?
, • Should what Mill claim to be ‘social interference’ be state interference? Mill is giving a lot of power
in the hands of society… this risks the possibility of the tyranny of the majority.
• Retributive punishment vs Deterring vs Rehabilitative (can be implement by society, on a smaller
scale than by the state)
• Is the harm principle the most effective tool to reach utility?
Criticisms:
In cases of domestic abuse where the victim is too afraid too ask for help - as we are not infallible judges, we cannot
assume that harm is taking place and as the victim does not ask for help we cannot help them.
In cases of self-harm it assumes that people know what is best for them, therefore they do not need any external
influence.
It lacks understanding of psychological harm that offences can lead to. Which should be valued equal to physical
harm. It is likely that in Mill's context nobody really took in consideration psychology, but I still think that it's
important to value psychological harm within the harm principle.
Mill creates a distinction between harm that is beneficial from a utilitarian perspective and harm that is solely
damaging. This creates a new problem or assumption that we can indeed differentiate between "beneficial" and
"damaging" harm. We could argue all harm in the end serves the purpose of strengthening our character.
To allow for personal liberty, harm principle doesn’t apply to self-regarding harm. This form of harm can however
have a great indirect effect on other individuals (for example family member who care for an individual’s well-being).
This harm can be greater than direct harm – that which is punishable by law but is still allowed – so harm principle
fails to prevent some of the greater types of harm.
Harm may be interpreted as good in some occasions.
Mill gives a vague definition of harm, without detailing what types of actions can be considered as such.
Harm principle assumes false distinction between public and private spheres, between self and other regarding actions.
One can state that there could be alternative approach to ensure self-protection of persons instead of the harm
principle.
Is the harm principle always supported by utility, as it may conflict in particular cases.
Could some children have less constraint on their liberty as they may be considered mature.
Legal moralism: the view that the law can legitimately be used to prohibit behaviour that conflicts with society’s
collective moral judgments even when that behaviour does not result in physical or psychological harm to others.
According to legal moralism, a person’s freedom can legitimately be restricted simply because it conflicts with
society’s collective/prevailing morality; thus, legal moralism implies that it is permissible for the state to use its
coercive power to enforce society’s collective morality.
Legal Paternalism: the view that the law may legitimately prohibit or constrain self-regarding conduct if it is
considered to be in the agent’s best interests. For example: laws enforcing wearing seat belts or motorcycle helmets.
According to Dworkin, there are goods, such as health and education, that any rational person needs to pursue her own
good-no matter how that good is conceived. Thus, Dworkin concludes, the attainment of these basic goods can
legitimately be promoted in certain circumstances by using the state’s coercive force.
Feinberg argues the harm principle must be augmented by the offence principle, which he defines as follows: “It is
always a good reason in support of a proposed criminal prohibition that it would probably be an effective way of
preventing serious offence (as opposed to injury or harm) to persons other than the actor, and that it is probably a
necessary means to that end”
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller alaskay. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for £7.49. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
77254 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy revision notes and other study material for 14 years now