John Stuart Mill Principle Analysis

1245 Words5 Pages
The object of this essay is to show a simple evaluation of john Stuart mill principle “an action is right that it does not cause harm to another person” I will be exercising both evaluations and explaining why the positive side outweighs the negative side of the principle, in a society that it’s people are emancipated to control their own opinions.
Mill Stuart in his autobiography of 1873 he narrates liberty as a philosophic chronicle of indivisible accuracy. (Mill (1989.edn).p.189) rather than speaking of rights, many claim a ‘right’ not to be harmed ,mill says that only a harm or risk to harm is enough vindication for using power above someone else. John Stuart moreover he adequate his principle by reckoning that it is not good to use power
…show more content…
This is a harm to the children and to the husband but it could be enjoyed by the husband in private. So some actions are offending and some are harmful so it is hard to relate which one was Stuart Mill talking about in his harm principle? Cause, a harmful and an offending situations are not easy to separate especially if there are different people involved. Lord Devlin in his book of morals he speaks”there are difficulties with relying on what an ordinary person would find morally acceptable”
According to Mills harm principle he assume that one can embark on an action that doesn’t affect others. This might seem impossible or I thought it was but it is not. For instance let us say that I enjoy cycling then one day I decide to take it to the cliff. I seem pretty good at this and I’m not harming anyone till I fall.
This might seem like it does not affect anyone, but it does in a sense that the rescue team which is to rescue me on the mountain have to watch out for poisonous snakes putting their lives in danger. It also affect the use of resources like the ambulance and the painkillers I would be given could have been given to another person who is injured from serious
Open Document