Analysis Of Mill's Harm Principle

📌Category: Behavior, Philosophers, Philosophical Theories, Philosophy, Psychology
📌Words: 692
📌Pages: 3
📌Published: 25 June 2021

At the beginning of his career, English Philosopher John Stuart Mill ( 1806-1872 )  was originally an economist, however, through the influence of the prominent British jurist, the godfather of Utilitarianism, Jeremy Bentham--and Mill's wife, Harriet Hardy Taylor, John Stuart Mill came to be regarded as one of the most influential 19th-century philosophers in the English speaking world. J.S. Mill heavily influenced Moral Philosophy, a specific branch of philosophy that identifies and critically analyzes rules of conduct, values, ethics, etc. Ultimately determining and explaining why we assess them as reasonable or unreasonable. 

Of the contributions J.S. Mill made Moral Philosophy; he particularly had three major influences on the field,  the Harm Principle ( 1859 ), higher and lower pleasures ( 1863 ), and women’s rights ( 1867 ). In this essay, however, we will discuss John Stuart Mill’s interesting “ Harm Principle “, which is also known as the Liberty Principle from his book On Liberty ( 1859 ) that is essentially three decades worth of his and his wife’s conversations on the concept of liberty and the rule of the government. These conversations Mill’s had with his wife are what gave birth to the Harm Principle.

The Harm Principle is a quite simple concept, anyone who is an adult, and of stable mental health, should be allowed to do whatever they want with themselves and other consenting adults, as long as they are not harming anybody else. An example of this principle could be a 20yr old woman who is confused about her sexuality and would like to experiment with a consenting individual of the same sex or a 25yr old man who would like to take boxing classes 5 days a week in search of competence, discipline, and good physical health. At the time of Mill’s and Taylor’s conversations about liberty and the rule of the government, there was no right to privacy in the United Kingdom, hence they both concluded that it was important to vocalize to the world that the government should have no right to interfere with what adults of stable mental health were doing, with themselves or other consenting individuals, as long as they didn’t harm anybody. 

There’s more to this principle though, Mill’s made three exceptions to it. (1) You cannot be allowed such freedom if you’re a child due to your lack of capacity to understand the consequences of your actions, (2) If you’re mentally unstable, and (3) If you’re a 3rd world country, Mill’s believes nations should fully embrace democracy before embracing this principle. Except for number 3, I believe these are reasonable and well-established rules to the Harm Principle and should be kept. While I overall agree with Mill’s Harm principle and find it to be a reasonable and appropriate concept, I believe it has one major flaw, and I believe this rule I am about to propose should be taken into consideration and implemented into the principle. 

Anyone who is an adult and steer clear of everything but a good state of mental health should be able to do as they please with themselves and other consenting adults, as long as they don’t harm others. The rule I would like to add to Mill’s Harm Principle is to make it so that absolutely NO consequences that arise from your actions and those involved can disturb the peace OR threaten the environment.  To maintain peace, whether it’s being considerate of your neighbor’s and not playing music too loud at 3 am or not spewing unpleasant things in a public space, and to preserve the environment, to make sure your actions don’t negatively affect the world we all share, doing our absolute best to avoid the extinction of our beautiful and amazing ecosystems and extinction of mankind. These are the crucial points I believe John Stuart Mill’s failed to make in his Harm Principle, and these crucial points are what I hold to believe worthy of being a part of the certain exceptions Mill’s made with his principle. 

Other than what I held to be a major flaw in the Harm Principle, I have no other complaints about the subject. What John Stuart Mill introduced I hold to be a righteous and reasonable concept, while it could use some work, it nevertheless came out of a person’s goodwill and hold’s strong relevance in accordance to our modern times. And I believe the Harm Principle will only continue to grow its relevance, especially with the growth of our technology.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.