Philosophers John Stuart Mill, Gerald Dworkin, Richard Thaler, and Cass Sunstein all tried to justify laws through three principles: the harm principle, legal paternalism, and libertarian paternalism. Mill’s harm principle only allows the government to create laws that impede an individual’s liberty to harm others. Whereas legal paternalism, according to Dworkin, allows laws to restrict an individual’s liberty for the individual’s own good. Thaler and Sunstein’s libertarian paternalism is different from Dworkin’s in how the paternalistic restrictions take place. The basis of all three is preventing an individual to harm others and I believe that sufficiently justifies laws. I also believe that Dworkin is correct in widening the justification of laws to include an individual’s harm or benefit to themselves.Thaler and Sunstein’s idea of nudging people to make beneficial decisions, I believe, is also correct. Any …show more content…
For a functional society, individuals must be protected from other individuals. The harm principle is why laws against murder, armed robbery, rape, etc. exist. These crimes are immoral in nature and should not be condoned in any way. A civil society is where the greatest total happiness can occur. In total, harm caused towards an individual is immoral and deserves to be punished by the law. I believe Mill’s objection of majoritarian interference is correct because otherwise, minority groups would have their freedoms infringed upon. For example, until recently, gay marriage was banned federally in the United States. The majority of Americans opposed gay marriage during this time as well. This majoritarian interference diminished the LGBTQ community’s freedom to marry. Although Mill also rejects paternalistic interference, we are looking specifically if the harm principle can justify laws. Mill’s principle is basic, but not only does it justify laws, it also provides the basis for other