![]() ![]() When making decisions about rights and responsibilities, we should be ever careful about the potential biases that inform who or what we apply them to.Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes circa 1924. This highlights an important point about the harm principle: the basis for determining who is worthy or capable of exercising their freedom can be subject to personal, cultural or political bias. Unfortunately, he also thought these measures were appropriate to use against “barbarians”, by which he meant non-Europeans in British colonies like India. For instance, paternalism over children was acceptable since children are not fully capable of responsibly exercising freedom, but paternalism over fully autonomous adults was not. Importantly, Mill believed the harm principle only applied to people who are able to exercise their freedom responsibly. Recent debates have questioned this and claim that certain kinds of speech can be as damaging psychologically as a physical attack – either because they’re personally insulting or because they entrench established power dynamics and oppress minorities. However, he says you do have the right to offend other people – having your feelings hurt doesn’t count as harm. For Mill, you do not have the right to incite violence – this is obviously harmful as it physically hurts and injures. “May the best person win”, so to say.Ī more difficult category concerns harmful speech. He would argue you wouldn’t be harming anyone by winning a promotion because although their interests are set back, no particular person has a right to a promotion. He defines harms as wrongful setbacks to interests to which people have rights. For example, if you benefit by winning a promotion at work while other applicants lose out, does this count as being harmful to them? Although it might seem obvious, it’s actually not that easy. The sticking point comes in trying to define what counts as harmful. But if you get behind the wheel of a car while under the influence, pass second-hand smoke onto other people, or become violent on certain drugs, then there’s good reason for the government to get involved. If you want to smoke, drink, or use drugs to excess, you should be free to do so. There’s no issue with actions that are harmful to the individual themselves. For this reason, the principle is often used in political debates to discuss the limitations of state power. ![]() On the other hand, “positive rights” demand that others do certain things for us, like provide healthcare or treat us with basic respect. For example, we have a negative right to not be assaulted. These are demands someone not do something to you. The phrase “Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” captures the general sentiment of the principle, which is why it’s usually linked to the idea of “negative rights”. The harm principle is not designed to guide the actions of individuals but to restrict the scope of criminal law and government restrictions of personal liberty.įor Mill – and the many politicians, philosophers and legal theorists who have agreed with him – social disapproval or dislike (“mere offence”) for a person’s actions isn’t enough to justify intervention by government unless they actually harm or pose a significant threat to someone. The principle is a central tenet of the political philosophy known as liberalism and was first proposed by English philosopher John Stuart Mill. The harm principle says people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |