This element of the principle is based on the fact that the individual may be deriving pleasure from such acts and no one else has the right to deprive them of that pleasure. If the action does not cause harm to other people, the government should not try to prevent it from happening. The government has no right to impose laws that define what a person can or cannot do with themselves (Vernon, 1996). The only restrictions come in when the harm extends to other people. This means a person is allowed to take any actions whether they are harmful to them or not. In the harm principle, John Stuart Mill argues that every individual has the freedom act in any way when it comes to their body and mind. One of the most basic elements of the harm principle is that a person should be allowed to continue with their actions even when they are harmful to oneself. It is in fact the sole purpose of the government to reinforce the personal freedom of each individual in the state where its powers are applicable. If a person’s actions are in line with this principle, the government has no right to interfere. The harm principle diminishes the powers of the government in controlling other people’s actions. In this perspective, if a person participates in activities that are harmful to other people, the government has the right to intervene and stop them from continuing. However, one’s freedom can be limited if the actions they engage in cause harm to other people or to the society as a whole. When freedom is taken away the quality of human life deteriorates (Gray, 2002). Freedom is seen as the most important factor of human life. However, the harm principle puts a limit to these powers and the government’s duties. This can be through use of controlling measures and can go to the extent of the usage of violence in asserting its rule among the people. This paper describes this theory and critically analyzes its applicability and validity in human lives.Īt the beginning of this work, Mill begins by noting that the government has the responsibility to govern the actions of people in the society using all the means available to them. In this perspective, the government’s responsibility in creating laws that limit individual liberty is addressed here. In this principle, Mill states that the government has no right to interfere with a person’s freedom as long as the actions they engage in are not harmful to others. In this work, he addresses one of the most important principles at the time referred to as the harm principle. On Liberty is one of his works published in 1859 and bearing his views on how liberty should be enacted in the lives of human beings. Windsor, which, I argue, reflects perfectly the collapse of the harm principle.As one of the most popular scholars of his time, the works of John Stuart Mill stand out due to the deep sense of opinion that they elicit. I then demonstrate the continued vitality of the argument by exploring the recent Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage, United States v. The argument in The Collapse of the Harm Principle can be slightly restated and, I believe, continues to shed light on contemporary debates over the legal regulation of morality: Today, the hegemony of the modern harm principle, developed by liberal legal thinkers at mid-twentieth century, continues to generate a proliferation of harm arguments, and the competing claims of non-trivial harms have effectively neutralized the limiting function of the harm principle. In this article, I return to my original argument to draw an important distinction and clarify a central point. Several readers raised forceful questions about the relationship between Mill’s original essay and the harm principle, as well as about the continuing vitality of Mill’s argument. In an article published in 1999, titled The Collapse of the Harm Principle, I argued that the harm principle, originally articulated in John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty (1859), had collapsed under the weight of its own success and no longer serves, today, as a limiting principle on the legal enforcement of morality. Windsor, John Stuart Mill's Essay On Liberty (1859), and H. The Collapse of the Harm Principle Redux: On Same-Sex Marriage, the Supreme Court's Opinion in United States v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |