John Stuart Mill Harm Principle Analysis

Topic I. Mill offers one very simple principle to determine the legitimacy of state interference: the Harm Principle. This principle is meant to exclude paternalistic interferences, i.e., interferences to prevent harm to self or to others who voluntarily associate with you. What are Mill’s arguments for the Harm Principle and against paternalistic interferences? What is the strongest objection that someone who favors paternalistic interferences might offer against Mill and in favor of such interferences? In the end, are paternalistic interferences justified? If so, why and under what circumstances? If not, why not ?

In the following paper, I will analyze the liberalist arguments proposed by John Stuart Mill. In the introduction, I will analyze

If an individual’s actions cause another individual harm, then he argues that it is legitimate for the state to limit the freedom of the individual who is causing the harm. Mill believes that an individual has individual freedom and is allowed to do whatever he wishes or pleases as long as he does not harm anyone in the process. If a person wishes to induce harm to himself, he should be able to do so as long as his actions do not cause harm for other members of the society. Similarly, if a person wants to go out and dress eccentric, he should be able to do so as long as his action does not harm other people. Mill points out exceptions to his principle and outlines children, mentally handicapped people and individuals whose decisions are compromised by ignorance, deception, duress who require paternalism and need protection from elders. For everyone else, Mill believes that they should be able to live their lives according to their wishes as long as they do not bring harm to others. Mill passionately defends the idea of individual freedom and believes that a person should be able to make his own mistakes and learn from them rather than be dictated by rules enforced by society. Mill fundamentally believes that living a life that is guided by the harm principle contributes to individual happiness. Mill believes that the harm principle

Mill argues that paternalism advances the interests of people at the expense of their liberty. Mill does not agree with the assumption that the paternalist can make wise choices for the people that they have to act for. Mill believes that paternalism limits the liberty of the people the decisions are being made for. Mill believed that by making their own choices, individuals would be able to receive the benefits of increased self esteem and self respect. They would learn from their mistakes and their odds of repeating the same mistakes in the future would be low. Applying this idea to anti-smoking laws by state, paternalism believes that since smoking is not beneficial for the individual, therefore it is justifiable for the state to enact these laws. Mill contradicts this and believes that if an individual is competent, mature and of the legal age, he should be able to decide for himself if a thing is harmful in itself. In the case of smoking, an individual should be able to decide for himself whether smoking is harmful or not. If he decides that it is, he should have the individual liberty to buy cigarettes since he has agreed to all the negative effects that are associated with it. Mill 's thought that having freedom of conscience and action would bring about the best society overall, with the exception of a few items in regards to the basic functions of a state. One