John Stuart Mill argues that harm to others is the justification for laws restricting behaviors of others. According to Mill’s harm principle, he argues that a person can do anything they want to do the way they like as long as they do not harm others with their actions. In support of his arguments, Mill argues that people should be forbidden acting in a manner that is harmful to others and the society. He says that individuals should not be allowed to destroy public property since this can harm others and divest the community. In addition, Mill asserts that human beings are rational and therefore law should not be imposed on them to justify their acts since they are rational enough to master their own actions and can distinguish between what is right and wrong. He says that individuals should be set free and get full liberty in their lives and should not be prone to rules and regulations put by the society as long as their actions are not in any way hurting the third party.
Mill clearly states that a state should not interfere with an individual unless the individual is threatening or is causing harm to others. Some laws put in place will always cause people to indulge in actions that can harm others. If laws do not restrict people and they are set free, they are rational enough and will make wise decisions that will not in any way harm others.
The critisms that can be made of basing the aim of law only preventing harm to others is that harm can only be identified on how it is caused and the consequences of the act and not the act itself. In Addition, this principle can be criticized by saying that, one can act in good way to other people yet accordin to them they feel that the actions are harming them yet whatever they did did not harm the third party in any way so basing the law on upon preventing harming others can end up punishing innocent people.
People have been trying to regulate morality since along time ago and it has never worked simply because the idea of regulating immorality if basically flawed. Morality cannot be legislated since people still do things even after knowing that they are going to face tough consequences. If people are legislated not to do certain things, its like an idea is being forced on them and so they will still end up doing it but if they are allowed to do what they want as long as they do not break the law, they will act rationally. In addition, when one is left to make a choice one decides with morality according to their conscience and does the right thing. They will act within their parameter and no one will end being hurt but whatever actions they do. People cannot be forced to act morally since they make their own decisions
In contrast, morality can still be regulated since the society cannot live without laws and also any public institution influences the society’s moral consciousness and therefore people have to live under laws. As much as legislation cannot bring change in social morality, it can bring steady changes in social morality and can prevent people from indulging in immoral acts for the fear law catching up with them.
Philosophers differ regarding whether morality is a proper aim of the law because individuals will always make their own choices on what is right or wrong and imposing some laws on them will at times not change their decisions. What some individuals consider immoral is not immoral to others because human beings do not have the same thinking and it is for this reason that people should be allowed to make their own choices on morality as much as laws are put in place to govern them.
Reference
Mill, J., S. (1978). On Liberty. London: Longman, Roberts and Green Press.
Devlin, P. (1965). The Enforcement of Morals. London: Oxford University Press.
