General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLiberty vs. License - John Stuart Mills Political Philosophy
We are seeing a breakdown in our social contract where individuals think that personal 'liberty" and "freedom" give them a "license" to do as they feel and thus bring harm to other's. I think that anti vaxer's, open carry laws, religious right to discriminate bills and many other issues are so contentious because they cross the line of your liberty vs my civil rights.
The Repubs want free choice when it comes to opt-out vaxs that in turn harms the rest of us, but don't want freedom of choice when it comes to a women's choice - something that does not harm anyone else's civil rights or freedom. Progressives need to take back the argument - "harm principle"
"There is a need, therefore, for a rationally grounded principle which governs a societys dealings with individuals. This one very simple principleoften called the harm principle"
http://www.iep.utm.edu/milljs/
e. On Liberty
The topic of justice received further treatment at Mills hands in his famous 1859 book On Liberty. This work is the one, along with A System of Logic, that Mill thought would have the most longevity. It concerns civil and social liberty or, to look at it from the contrary point of view, the nature and limits of the power that can legitimately be exercised by society over the individual.
Mill begins by retelling the history of struggle between rulers and ruled and suggests that social rather than political tyranny is the greater danger for modern, commercial nations like Britain. This social tyranny of the majority (a phrase Mill takes from Tocqueville) arises from the enforcement of rules of conduct that are both arbitrary and strongly adhered to. The practical principle that guides the majority to their opinions on the regulation of human conduct, is the feeling in each persons mind that everybody should be required to act as he, and those with whom he sympathizes, would like them to act. (On Liberty
- , 48). Such a feeling is particularly dangerous because it is taken to be self-justifying and self-evident.
There is a need, therefore, for a rationally grounded principle which governs a societys dealings with individuals. This one very simple principleoften called the harm principleentails that:
[T]he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise. (OL, 51-2)
This anti-paternalistic principle identifies three basic regions of human liberty: the inward domain of consciousness, liberty of tastes and pursuits (i.e. of framing our own life plan), and the freedom to unite with others.
Mill, unlike other liberal theorists, makes no appeal to abstract right in order to justify the harm principle. The reason for accepting the freedom of individuals to act as they choose, so long as they cause minimal or no harm to others, is that it would promote utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being. (OL, 53). In other words, abiding by the harm principle is desirable because it promotes what Mill calls the free development of individuality or the development of our humanity.
Behind this rests the idea that humanity is capable of progressthat latent or underdeveloped abilities and virtues can be actualized under the right conditions. Human nature is not static. It is not merely re-expressed in generations and individuals. It is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. (OL, 105). Though human nature can be thought of as something living, it is also, like an English garden, something amenable to improvement through effort. Among the works of man, which human life is rightly employed in perfecting and beautifying, the first in importance surely is man himself. (OL, 105). The two conditions that promote development of our humanity are freedom and variety of situation, both of which the harm principle encourages.
A basic philosophical problem presented by the work is what counts as harm to others. Where should we mark the boundary between conduct that is principally self-regarding versus conduct that involves others? Does drug-use cause harm to others sufficient to be prevented? Does prostitution? Pornography? Should polygamy be allowed? How about public nudity? Though these are difficult questions, Mill provides the reader with a principled way of deliberating about them.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,716 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)We are all equals and should treat eachother that way.
Instead we take advantage of eachother and portray some as lesser or inferior and some as greater or more important.
Respect your fellow humans and our mother earth and give more than you take.
Bandit
(21,475 posts)of Pot.