On Liberty (harm principle) Flashcards
(23 cards)
What is one way that Mill expresses the harm principle?
‘The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.’
What is the main expression of the harm principle?
The object of this essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.
Does Mill rely on the abstract notion of a right in making his argument?
It is proper to state that I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right, as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.
How does Mill restate the harm principle at the start of Chapter 4 with reference to interests?
As soon as any part of a person’s conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person’s conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like.
How does Mill anticipate the objection that all actions affect others in some way?
No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them.
How does Mill seek to overcome this initial objection to the harm principle?
No person ought to be punished simply for being drunk; but a soldier or a policeman should be punished for being drunk on duty. Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or definite risk of 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.
How does Mill make clear that the harm principle is a necessary and not sufficient condition for interference?
In the first place, it must by no means be supposed, because damage, or probability of damage, to the interests of others, can alone justify the interference of society, that therefore it always does justify such interference.
Mill then goes on to give an example of an examination- harms interests of others but it is better overall that such activity be left unregulated.
Why does Mill argue that it is not an infringement on liberty to be seized and turned back just before crossing an unsafe bridge?
Liberty consists in doing what one desires and he does not desire to fall into the river.
What does Mill argue about offences against decency?
They should rightly be prohibited.
Why does Mill argue that an individual should not have the liberty to sell themselves into slavery?
The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free.
Couple of nice quotes.
‘Customs are made for customary circumstances and customary characters; and his circumstances or his character may be uncustomary.’
‘He who lets the world, or his portion of it, choose his plan of life for him, has no need of any other faculty than the ape-like one of imitation. He who chooses his plan for himself, employs all his faculties.’
Why is there concern that Mill’s On Liberty is inconsistent with his Utilitarianism?
The principles of liberty and utility protect distinct and divergent values. The principle of liberty tells us that we must not compromise liberty except when harm to others is at stake. The principle of utility tells us that only pleasure or happiness has value for its own sake.
We naturally think of liberty and happiness as rivals and competitors in many realms of human life.
Mill is trying to show how one exceptionless principle can be justified by another exceptionless principle. There is nothing formally inconsistent about such a suggestion, but on any plausible view of humans and society, serious losses of utility must result from strict adherence to such a principle.
How might Mill respond to this accusation of inconsistency?
Mill takes happiness to include liberty as a necessary ingredient.
Once again, he seems to be working with a stretched notion of happiness.
How might we seriously use Mill’s framework to ground liberalism in utility?
This should be thought of in the context of Mill’s multi-level utilitarianism.
He is advocating for the harm principle to be considered as a secondary principle (on the level of customary morality).
This means that it is not ultimately authoritative, but thinking of it as such will in fact maximise utility.
This has plausibility, but can be questioned with regards to paternalism.
Is the harm principle based solely upon harm tenable?
No, we must introduce the notion of interests.
What does Rees say about interests?
Interests depend for their existence on social recognition and are closely connected with prevailing standards about the sort of behaviour a man can legitimately expect from others.
I might be affected by others because I have an extraordinarily sensitive nature. I might be affected by watching a theatrical performance. I might be affected by going through a religious experience. However, it would not make sense to say that in these cases my interests have been affected.
A plant can be affected, but we do not talk of its interests.
A university’s interests are affected if a rival institute is set up nearby.
Is Mill consistent in referring to ‘harm to interests’?
No, Mill is not consistent in this regard. He refers interchangeably between ‘harm to others’ and ‘harm to the interests of others’.
How does Rees tie interests to rights?
When a person can be thought to have interests he is thereby possessed of a right, if only the right to have his interests taken into account.
Rights and interests are not synonymous but they are very closely related to each other.
Why might there be concern that the way Rees has defined interests in relativistic?
“Interests depend for their existence on social recognition”.
However, interests do not have to be relativised in this way. Interests are partly shaped by society at the time, but there are interests that are of a more fundamental nature, interests that men have regardless of what society men live in.
Indeed, Mill held that moral rights are the protection of certain fundamental interests.
How does a careful examination of Utilitarianism reveal what Mill took the ‘vital interests’ to be?
(Gray)
The moral rules which forbid mankind to hurt one another concern the moral rules of justice.
“Justice is a name for certain moral requirements, which regarded collectively, stand higher in the scale of social utility, and are therefore of more paramount obligation, than any others”.
Mill identifies the vital interests of ‘autonomy’ and ‘security’.
These relate to the permanent interests of man as a progressive being.
How does Mill understand security?
(Gray)
Mill conceives of security primarily in terms of the reliability of established expectations. Violation of one’s legal rights, breach of promise or of contract, the kind of general uncertainty which accompanies both arbitrary despotism and weak government- all these are circumstances in which expectations are subject to unpredictable disappointments which in Mill’s view amount to encroachments on the moral right to security. Persons should be reliably protected from the physical attacks of their neighbours, from confiscation of property, from arbitrary arrest and so on.
How does Mill understand autonomy?
(Gray)
Autonomy involves framing and implementing an imaginative and self-critical plan of life.
How does Mill link autonomy to liberty?
The priority of liberty in Mill’s utilitarian account of the moral rights derives in part from its conceptual and empirical connections with autonomy. Autonomy designates the capacities and opportunities involved in self-critical and imaginative choice-making, and the classical liberal freedoms listed in the introductory chapter of On Liberty can all be seen as indispensable to the exercise of powers of autonomous thought and action. Because of its links with autonomy, liberty in Mill’s doctrine becomes a necessary ingredient of happiness and not just a causally efficacious means to it. Autonomy could be abridged both by the interference of others and by intrapersonal failings (such as weakness of will, lack of imagination, etc.)
Respecting autonomy means allowing one to pursue goals that might damage their life in its totality.
