The Harm principle propounded by John Stuart Mill is one of the highly recognized principles in the fields of philosophy and that of the libertarian politics. In this principle, Mill observes that individual actions should only be limited to protecting and preventing harm to other people. He articulated that the power can only be said to have been exercised rightfully over a civilized community, against their will if it is intended to prevent harms against those individual members (Ingram 134). John Stuart Mill appreciated that every individual was free to engage in any action and should not be prohibited in acting that way. However, he emphasized that those actions should not interfere with the free acts of others. Ideally, the principle attempts to demonstrate how dealings of a particular person in the society should considerate of others. Mill views harm and wrongdoing as synonymous. He argues that harm in itself is not a non-moral idea. The action only becomes wrong if harm is inflicted upon another person. John believed that a person’s physical or moral goodness is insufficient to warrant any course of action except when that action concerns others in the society (Ingram 134).
In understanding the implications of Harm Principle, it is significant to appreciate the fact that Mill excused those persons he thought are incapable of self-governing from the principle. They included children and those persons living in the backward state of the society. He further emphasized that any society is not obliged to intervene if an action is self-regarding and directly affects the person undertaking it even if the action is harmful to that person (Ingram 134). He noted, however that persons are prohibited from doing serious and lasting harms to themselves or their property. These are because such harm would affect others since no person exists in isolation and harm to property deprives others the opportunity of utilizing them. In his opinion, the state is only justified in interfering in an individual’s life if it causes harm to another person or to the state. It is essential to understate that the Mill’s Principle has attracted many discussions regarding its implications on morality, liberty and its ability to reconcile with the Principle of Liberty (Eisenach 97). The reconciliation imposes severe constraints on the concept of morality.
It is, therefore, rational to take into consideration, the effects of the principle to other variables affecting the society such as freedom. The distinctive point is where good deeds apply to the general society and bad actions are prevented and controlled by the state. The ultimate result is to understand freedom as a self-discipline and no a mere self-assertion (Eisenach 96). Mill’s Harm Principle is suitable to all societies especially those societies devoid of common ideals and purpose. The principle provides a sense of direction and protects harm against individual members and the state. Societies devoid of ideals lack meaning and may engages in acts of omission and commission that could result into harm to others. Therefore, Harm Principle provides a guideline that serves to protect the interests of the people (Ingram 134). It ensures that despite having freedom to choose what needs to be done; only actions that do not cause or risk causing any injury to the state and others are undertaken. The principle, therefore, provides a path towards a meaningful community life where democracy and freedom dominates.
In conclusion, although Mill’s Harm Principle has embedded weaknesses, it serves to protect and promote a democratic society. It implies that individuals have right to choose what to do to the extent that it does not cause harm to others hence suitable in the society.
Works Cited
Eisenach, Eldon J. Mill and the Moral Character of Liberalism. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998. Print.
Ingram, David. Law. London [u.a.: Continuum, 2006. Print.
