What Is John Stuart Mill Harm Principle

The last author to critique J.S. Mill’s harm principle was Peter Glassman. Of the numerous analysis of John Stuart Mill’s harm principle, Glassman offers the least critical evaluation. In J.S. Mill: The Evolution of a Genius, Glassman views the harm principle as John Stuart Mill’s way of defending each individual’s “power to think,” and as a way to distinguish his ideas of utilitarianism from those of Jeremy Bentham, and his father’s, James Mill (116). Peter Glassman views the harm principle as a defense of an individual’s intelligence. According to Glassman, John Stuart Mill was suggesting that people “are most [themselves] in [their] power to think” (116). In the harm principle, John Stuart Mill states that people should be free to pursue things that they find fulfilling. Therefore, it is understandable why Glassman believes that the power of thinking correlates to a person pursuing his or her self-interest. When a person is thinking, they are doing something that they find fulfilling; thus, they are pursuing a self-interest. In addition, Glassman states that “in our opportunities to think and in our ability to think that we must command comprehensive virtually complete independence” (116). As mentioned earlier, the main theme of

According to Glassman, John Stuart Mill once saw himself and his ideas as subordinate to those of his father’s, James Mill (117). Glassman believes that, by creating his own principle that embodied “individualism and liberty,” Mill made a place for himself in utilitarianism (117). That is because, unlike his father, John Stuart Mill was advocating “unhindered participation” in the harm principle (118). As a result of its stark distinction from the views held by his father, Peter Glassman views Mill’s harm principle as a piece that was meant to free him and create a name for himself in utilitarian