The argument that no action can be perfectly harmful to only one member of a society justifies with the Harm Principle any and all intrusions on individual freedom by pointing out a possible harm towards another. Mill states “Whenever, in short there is definite damage, or a of risk damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or Law”. This statement is entirely open to the interpretation of those who would implement it. Each society’s definition of risk and damage is subject to their own discretion. It is unclear whether psychological damage is included, or only physical, corporeal harm.
John Stuart Mill was a transitional thinker with a classical utilitarian philosophy. He was a programmatic thinker with a lifelong project to reconstruct the classical utilitarianism. In this collection of On Liberty and Other Essays, Mill is representing his central moral and political concerns for his time. On Liberty is the first essay in the book, followed by other essays such as Utilitarianism, The Subjection of Women, and then lastly Considerations on Representative Government. John Stuart Mill in his On Liberty essay breaks it up into five chapters supporting his argument that liberty is what is best for mankind and that society should only have power to control actions that directly affect it or harms its members.
He attests that humankind wasn't made to just fit in with each other, for if that were the situation the main expertise that people require would be the craft of impersonation. Likewise, the significance of a man to have his own particular wants and driving forces is also discussed by Mill. Solid driving forces deliver vitality, the fuel for change and movement, both great and awful. Mill discusses the significance of unique idea and immediacy in human culture. Unique masterminds can look for, find and spread word about the facts that generally wouldn't be found.
In chapter one of Mill’s book “On Liberty” published 1859, he observes that freedom can be split into three types. Firstly, he mentions the liberty of thought and opinion. The second type is the liberty of tastes and pursuits and the freedom we have to plan our own lives. Thirdly, there is the liberty to strive for a common purpose with other like-minded people without harming anyone. According to Mill each type “must be recognized and respected by any free society.” (Mill, 1859) Looking at Mill’s concept of the liberty of thought and opinion, we reflect on the Charlie Hebdo terrorist attack.
Dr. Simon Clarke published an article called Mill, Liberty & Euthanasia in which his thesis states that, “deciding when to die is a matter of individuality” (Clarke 1). Dr. Clarke backs up his thesis by using some of the rationalities behind John Stuart Mill’s Liberty Principle. According to the Liberty Principle, people should be free to pursue their greatest good as long as it does not cause harm for the community. Secondly, the principle argues that when people are free they have the ability to seek their “individuality” therefore liberty benefits the person. For example, a person develops their individuality by developing their skills, personality, values, and potential.
In Mill’s writing On Liberty chapter two “Of the liberty of thought and discussion” Mill sets out an important argument for freedom of speech in which a state without “the liberty of thought and discussion” was one in which the individual could not pursue happiness. Below, Mill’s discussion and emphasis pf freedom of opinion, and freedom of the expression of opinion, which he bases and argues on four distinct grounds, will be examined. Firstly, Mill’s states “the opinion which it is attempted to supress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress
In order for one to receive the death penalty, the victim must have died. “the death penalty may not be given for the crime of rape when the victim does not die, reasoning that to do so would constitute a disproportionate punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment” (“Introduction to Death Penalty” 2). This ensures that those on death row have been punished fittingly based on the crime committed. It would be wrong to put one to death if their crime was not extreme enough to where they cost someone else their life. However, there are exceptions to this.
Mill believed that it was essential for individuals to choose the opinions and customs that they wanted to practice instead of blindly conforming to the opinions of others. By choosing the ideals that they want to follow, individuals develop their conscience, reason, and judgement, while by blindly following others they are not exercising their liberty to choose. Mill stated that a person should feel free to pursue whatever they want as long as he/she doesn’t encroach on the rights of others. According to him, by imposing rigid guidelines of conduct a society risks to lose its progress and become stagnant. Mill gives example of China,
In what follows, I will further explicate the arguments posed in ‘ A Right to Self Termination ?’ I find the view stated in the article is compelling and will argue with Velleman that it is morally wrong for a person to commit suicide on the basis that doing so reduces oneself to a mere means. I will argue that in the case of suicide the act of committing suicide is unjustifiable, we have a value inside us, in all humans that we all must live up