On Liberty and Mill S Utilitarian Philosophy

¶ … 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 wear helmets to protect themselves -- but Mill's "harm principle" clearly states that the power should only be exercised "to prevent harm to others," from which one can infer that we should be quite free to harm ourselves if we so desire. 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.

Likewise, the skateboarder: he may only be harming himself -- but he could also harm others through his activity. Again, each is debatable. Ultimately, one would also have to apply Mill's utility principle, which would suggest that that which makes the most people happy should be law. Chapter 11 Question 2 Suppose, as many people believe, that murders who are black or poor are more likely to be executed than other murders.

How would this situation affect your assessment of capital punishment? It would make capital punishment appear like a racist and classist law exercise of punitive justice. Why should only blacks or poor people be executed and not wealthy or white people? It would appear that the system of so-called justice is geared towards oppressing certain groups of people that are despised by WASPs and elitists. Such a system is clearly unjust and full of inequalities and I would be opposed to any such system.

If that is the way that capital punishment is actually exercised, I would argue that its exercise should cease altogether. Why do blacks or poor deserve to be punished in such a.