Both the harm principle and legal paternalism are aimed at upholding an individual’s liberties within the law. However, they argue different view points and restrictions. The harm principle is chiefly concerned with upholding an individual’s right to somehow harm oneself, while legal paternalism says the law can interfere to prevent an individual from harming oneself. This is the most obvious distinction between the two philosophies. Dworkin’s argument for legal paternalism, however, uses Mill’s argument against him, and ultimately proves to be the stronger principle to justify law. I believe legal paternalism is the only principle that may justify laws, and it will be explained why by showing how Mill’s own views allow for legal paternalism, how Dworkin perseveres freedom through interference, and how there are functions in place to minimize paternalistic interference.
However, we must begin by defining what these two philosophies are. First, the harm principle will be explained. Mill himself writes it as being, “… the sole end for which mankind are warranted,
…show more content…
Within this difference, legal paternalism claims that their interference only comes to preserve the liberty of the person in question, while the harm principle says that interference restricts the person’s liberty (the only exception being willing slavery). After carefully considering the implications that both the harm principle and legal paternalism carry, I find that legal paternalism has justification within law, and not the harm principle. Both principles have their strengths and weaknesses, however legal paternalism specifically addresses the harm principle, and even manages to construct the argument that the harm principle allows for paternalism under Mill’s one