Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
¶ … Mill's basic principle, assess the legitimacy of laws (a) requiring motorists to wear helmets, (b) preventing people from walking naked in public parks, (c) forbidding people to take drugs like cocaine or heroin, or (d) outlawing skateboarding in certain areas.
Mill's "harm principle" as stated in On Liberty could possibly be a legitimate reason to enforce wearing helmets for motorists, outlaw people from walking naked in parks, outlaw cocaine or heroin usage, and ban skateboarding in certain areas. Yet, as Mill (1859) himself states, "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" (p. 21). With that said, one may be able to object to the application of Mill's "harm principle" in so far as it applies to motorists, nudists, drug users, and skateboarders for the simple reason that they are not necessarily harming others but possibly only harming themselves. This point, of course, could be debated both ways.
First, it could be said that motorists should...
In fact, Mill states, "His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (p. 21) to exercise laws against him. So then the motorist should be free to drive without protective wear -- unless it could be argued that by doing so the motorist is also a danger to others. Is he? Perhaps it could be argued that by setting a reckless or careless attitude, which might inspire others who are impressionable to think that they can drive irresponsibly, the helmetless motorist is harming others.
As for the nudist, is he harming anyone by walking naked? Yes and no. Some might say, again, that the nudity is shocking and inciting, while others might say the nudist is only exposing himself so it is no harm to others. Yet, some might not wish to be exposed to such nudity in a public place. So this could go both ways. The same could be said of the drug user: he is only harming himself -- unless it can be shown that in harming himself he is also a danger or a leech to society.…
References
Kadi, J. (1996). Thinking Class. MA: South End Press.
Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. UK: Oxford University.
Every act happens at some time and in some place, and in like manner every act that we do either does or may affect both ourselves and others." Still others try to rebuff these objections, clarifying self-regarding acts and other-regarding acts. J.C. Rees is at the helm of the counter-movement of interpretations, arguing that there is a distinguishable difference between actions that affect others and those that affect others' interests; he purports
Moreover, how does he justify saying one would rather be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool who is satisfied? His point is obvious - it is better to have brains and not achieve happiness than be dumb and be contented. But Socrates, brilliant as he was, chose death over exile from Athens, which it can be argued did not lead to happiness in Socrates nor in the students who admired
For Singer, the human community must receive justice, not simply a society setting its own local standards of morality and justice, as in Mill's argument. For Singer there are no 'imperfect' obligations, rather all obligations are absolute. Someone who merely does no harm to others, or extends help only to family members and his or her immediate community is committing a moral wrong. Even someone who is 'good' but
Mill and Wilson Attempting to find any common ground between the moral and political philosophies of John Stuart Mill and Edward O. Wilson seems futile, given that their ideas are based on extremely different premises and assumptions. Wilson was a Darwinian evolutionist who argued that human culture, behavior and morality was mostly rooted in genetics -- in DNA that had evolved over millions of years -- while this idea would simply
Mills Arguements Intrinsic Value of Liberty There can be very few doubts as to the importance of liberty to the philosophical espousing of John Stuart Mill, who even authored a treatise entitled On Liberty to underscore the amount of emphasis he placed on this particular concept. What is most interesting about the many different notions the author has in relation to freedom is the circumscriptions that are routinely placed upon it in
Mill talked of ethical freedom in terms of all areas wherein individual and society interacts and become involved with each other; Marx utilized the same viewpoint, although specified it in terms of proletarian-bourgeoisie relations. For Marx, ethical freedom is self-realization within the individual, and primary in this realization was the acknowledgment that one needs to be economically independent in order for modern individuals, and society in general, to function progressively.