ipl-logo

The Limitations Of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

996 Words4 Pages

John Stuart Mill, a respected philosopher, laid out ideas in his time that resonate today. Among these are his principles regarding the limitations of liberty. These were given to us in his work On Liberty. Throughout the writing we are offered four different principles, being the Harm Principle, Legal Paternalism Principle, Offense Principle, and Legal Moralism. The first of these is different from the rest in that it allows the individual to live their lives to the fullest extent possible (within reason), more than the others, which all impose some sort of restriction, almost always set in place by a government. Mill argues for the Harm Principle, employing the ideas of utilitarianism in the process and a concept known as the “veil of ignorance”. …show more content…

The first is the Harm Principle. This idea is “self-regarding”, meaning that it only concerns the individual in action. Thus, whatever an individual sees as fit for them is what they should do, even if others frown upon such an action. However, one must note that whatever action is committed cannot harm another individual (this is the only exception). Next we examine the Legal Paternalism Principle. Contrary to the Harm Principle, the actions discussed by this concept are “other-regarding”, meaning that while an individual’s actions may not harm another individual, such actions may still be limited if they are believed to harm the individual in action. One example would be regarding cigarettes. Although a 15 year-old could decide for themselves whether they should smoke, the law in America prevents the minor from purchasing cigarettes, in order to protect their health. Thus, “Paternalism” is included in the principle name, as it implies that the governmental body acts as a parent in the best interests of the youth, even if the youth …show more content…

This states that whichever action allows for the highest level of welfare for individuals is what should be done. Mill continues this idea by proposing that actions that produce a higher level of pleasure should be chosen, though this pleasure may not be for the individual acting, but rather for others affected by the action. For example, while intoxication through the consumption of alcoholic beverages may be enjoyable, it would be better for an individual to instead spend that time volunteering at a kitchen to help feed the homeless. While one may prefer the former, the latter would bring about the greatest amount of pleasure. Simply put, utilitarianism is the greatest good for the greatest number, employing utility and providing its name. The concept of utilitarianism is compatible with the Harm Principle, as individuals are encouraged to perform in any way that they see fit. The Harm Principle places guidelines on utilitarianism by providing reasonable restrictions meant to prevent others from getting hurt in the process of whatever action one sees as fit for

Show More
Related
240 Words | 1 Pages

In Defense of Utilitarianism, J.S. Mill In the excerpt from John Stuart Mill’s book, Utilitarianism, Mill defends the utilitarian theory against three different objections. The first, and strongest opposition to utilitarianism was the accusation that the emphasis on the pursuit of pleasure makes utilitarianism “a doctrine worthy of swine.” This was my favorite argument because Mill defended it so well stating that there are varying degrees of pleasure. He refers to them as “high” and “low” pleasures, which I do agree with.

Read More
744 Words | 3 Pages

Ross came up with a list of seven basic prima facie duties as they apply to individuals. These duties included a duty to (1) reparation, (2) fidelity, (3) gratitude, (4) justice, (5) beneficence, (6) self-improvement, and (7) nonmaleficence. Tom Regan’s Rights Theory stems around the idea that every person has four basic, semi-universal rights: (1) the right not to be harmed, (2) the right to aid when their rights have been violated, (3) the right to self-defense, and (4) the liberty right. In this paper I will also discuss Tom Regan’s worse off principle.

Read More
1040 Words | 5 Pages

In this paper, I will argue that intended parents, not gestational carriers, should have the right to decide whether the carrier continues to gestate a fetus or not in cases where the fetus has a severe, life-threatening physical or mental deficit (Cohen 2013). The gestational carrier, such as Crystal Kelley, gestates a fetus for a couple or potential parent and has no genetic tie to the child, unlike a surrogate (Byrn and Snyder 2005). In Crystal Kelley’s case, the intended couple wanted to abort the fetus because it had severe health defects such as holoprosencephaly and heterotaxy, in which the brain is not divided into two hemispheres and the internal organs are displaced (Cohen 2013). However, Ms. Kelley was unwilling to abort the fetus

Read More
290 Words | 2 Pages

In the reading, "Utilitarianism," the author argues that happiness is the main criteria for morality since people base their actions off of the overall happiness it could promote (pp. 195 and 198) and that while actions differ in the quantity and quality of pleasure, pleasurable actions that require intellect are of the higher pleasures (pp. 196-197).   One of the author’s main reasons to support his view is that morality is determined by what increases or decreases the overall amount of utility (pp. 197). Mill denounces the view of utilitarianism as a selfish, unsympathetic ideology by stating that it could only be best used if everyone could promote utility, and he uses the Greatest Happiness Principle, in which he explains that actions

Read More
1637 Words | 7 Pages

Mills believed that society had the right to limit freedoms of the individual to engage in behaviors that affected those not engaging in the behaviors. This idea is articulated later in “On Liberty” when mill states that the “only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.”

Read More
1412 Words | 6 Pages

One may say, “If I do something that’s only harming me, then society can’t step in and force me to do otherwise.” However, isn’t everything we do affecting other people in the society? For example, if a person were to not vaccinate his newborn and his newborn contracts a disease, it will affect others in society. In response, Mill would acknowledge that people are not fully isolated from society, and therefore the actions those people take will ultimately affect others and possibly do harm. However, he says, "But with regard to the merely contingent or, as it may be called, constructive injury which a person causes to society by conduct which neither violates any specific duty to the public, nor occasions perceptible hurt to any assignable individual except himself, the inconvenience is one which society can afford to bear, for the sake of the greater good of human freedom” (Mill 80).

Read More
1503 Words | 7 Pages

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

Read More
1218 Words | 5 Pages

The main principle of utilitarianism is happiness. People who follow this theory strive to fulfill the “ultimate good”. The “ultimate good” is defined as ultimate pleasure with out any pain. It is said that the pleasure can be of any quantity and any quality, but pleasures that are weighted more important are put at a higher level than others that are below it. This ethical theory also states that if society would fully embrace utilitarianism then people would naturally realize their moral standing in the

Read More
850 Words | 4 Pages

As there is no clear victim in this case the principle of harm will not be applicable here and would not be considered as an act that can be criminalised. This paper is about whether a victimless crime can be criminalised. Various theorists have argued in favour and against the criminalisation process. The argument against criminalisation is mainly on the violation of the individual autonomy of a person, where he will be criminalised for an act that he did as a part of exercising his autonomy and has not affected any other person in the process. On the other hand, one argument from the side favouring criminalization is that if such acts are not criminalised then they may cause social harm.

Read More
1312 Words | 6 Pages

It states that an action which is deemed right is one that has not merely some good consequences, but also the greatest amount of good consequences possible when the negative consequences are also given due considerations. According to the utilitarian principle, the righteousness of an action is solely judged on the basis of its consequences. Classical utilitarianism determines the balance of pleasure and pain for each individual affected by the action in question as well as the amount of utility for the whole

Read More
1232 Words | 5 Pages

Hate crime has always been the thorniest issues facing most societies that labor to strike a balance between the freedom of expressing distasteful opinions and the right not to be victimized and prejudiced because of expressing oneself; bearing in mind that the right to freedom of opinion and expression is a fundamental right which safeguards the exercise of all other rights and is a critical underpinning of democracy. It is a complex nexus to determine the end of freedom of expression and the beginning of hate crime. If uttered words results in inciting unlawful acts, breach of social order and brings revolt and pain numerous vital aspects of social and individual interests will be adversely affected . Hate crime has through

Read More
1564 Words | 7 Pages

John Stuart Mill, at the very beginning of chapter 2 entitled “what is utilitarianism”. starts off by explaining to the readers what utility is, Utility is defined as pleasure itself, and the absence of pain. This leads us to another name for utility which is the greatest happiness principle. Mill claims that “actions are right in proportions as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” “By Happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain, by happiness, pain and the privation of pleasure”.

Read More
589 Words | 3 Pages

In its simplest form, consequentialism requires that one maximizes the overall well being of any situation whenever possible. Consequentialism also promotes impartiality and moral flexibility. In other words, consequentialism treats everyone as equals and allows for more wiggle room when it comes to breaking certain moral rules as long as the means justify the ends. Although there is no exact way to calculate the overall well being, John Stuart Mill suggested that we focus on “the greatest good for the greatest number” (Shafer-Landau 122). On the surface, consequentialism may seem like a viable moral theory.

Read More
1685 Words | 7 Pages

Utilitarianism is a teleological ethical theory based on the idea that an action is moral if it causes the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. The theory is concerned with predicted consequences or outcomes of a situation rather than focusing on what is done to get to the outcome. There are many forms of utilitarianism, having been introduced by Jeremy Bentham (act utilitarianism), and later being updated by scholars such as J.S. Mill (rule utilitarianism) and Peter Singer (preference utilitarianism). When referring to issues of business ethics, utilitarianism can allow companies to decide what to do in a given situation based on a simple calculation. Many people would agree that this idea of promoting goodness

Read More
820 Words | 4 Pages

Utilitarianism states that an act is right or wrong if it has the best balance of pleasure over pain among the available acts. This theory was developed by Jeremy Bentham, he believed that we need to be most worried about how much pleasure and/or pain our actions cause. In addition, J.S. Mill developed a highly influential version of Utilitarianism after breaking away from Jeremy Bentham, who was his teacher. Mill’s Utilitarianism is focused around the greatest happiness principle which states that actions are right to the extent that they tend to promote happiness and wrong to the extent that they tend to promote the opposite. Happiness is defined as pleasure and the absence of pain.

Read More

More about The Limitations Of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty

Related Topics

Open Document