John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle
Introduction
Throughout the human history, the use of force has been applied to restrain people from acting in a manner that may cause harm or danger to other people, or to themselves. There has been always an attempt to constrain people to act in a particular manner, or behave in a manner that is conventional in a particular group of people. However, in the current civilized society, there is always a discrepancy between what a person is allowed to do and what one cannot be allowed. The use of force to restrain a person to act in a desired manner is seen as an archaic way, and total disregard for human rights, hence freedom to act the way one wants should be allowed, at least to a certain extent. Concerning this, many people have come up with different theories that try to direct and control the way people should behave, and the extent to which freedom should be applied.
Harm Principle
John Stuart Mill's harm principle asserts that the action of a person should only be limited to prevent harm to others. In this case, he argues that in the current civilized world, there should be no direct attempt to control the manner in which a person acts or behaves. The only exception is in the case where the action may result in harm to other people. The fact that one’s action may cause danger to oneself is not a reason enough for one to be forcefully restrained from doing what he or she wants to do. Restricting a person’s action may be by use of physical force, or even the use of legal restrictions. Mill argues that no forms of restrictions should be used against any person, as long as no other person is in the way of harm resulting from the action (Mill 1997).
Mill’s assertions seem to be inspired by the advent of democratic systems of governance over the autocratic ones. In this system, the rule of a small minority is replaced by the collective voice of the majority, who chose the leaders whom they want. However, this does not guarantee that all the decisions that are taken by the majority are right or acceptable to everybody. In many cases, they may be actually detrimental to a few minorities who may be harassed due to lack of audible voice in a democratic system. To guard against this, there is a need to set up systems that will ensure that justice is defined in advance and what constitutes a crime is defined. This way, a person is allowed to operate and live within a certain code of conduct.
In Miller’s opinion, this code of conduct cannot be exhaustively defined, as it can vary from one occasion to another, place to place or situation to another. To sum up all these, Mill proposes that the best way to ensure freedom and accountability at the same time is to let people to behave as they wish, as long as they do not pose any danger or harm to other people. In this way, they do not use their freedom to curtail the freedom of others.
The main concern here is whether everybody should be allowed to do what he or she want. In such a case, the limit or the boundary in terms of age or people’s sanity is questionable. It is obvious that people are different in many ways, and some must be restrained from hurting themselves or others (Kernohan 2002). Take a case of mad person, who in s or her wisdom, ends up cutting open his skin and letting blood flow out freely. This person must be restrained because he lacks sound judgment and there is a need for the government or the wider society to exert a form of control over the life if this person. If this is not done in advance, the society will be lacking relevance if it cannot provide security to other people.
While most harmful activities that a person can do will only tend to affect only the person, the long-term implication might end up affecting other people, either directly or indirectly. Consider the case of a chronic smoker, while as a matter of principle, only smokes at the comfort of his house. This action seems only to harm just the person, since smoking is harmful to one’s health (Gerson 2002). However, the challenge here is that this person will end up contracting diseases, and the cost of treating these diseases will be to a large extent be transferred to the state. The money that is spent in treatment could have been used in other noble causes that benefit everybody. In such cases, there is a need to control the action of people, and not allow them to act as it seems fit in their own eyes. This calls for the retention of the age-old customs where the comfort and security of a person could be restrained if it posed a danger to him.
However, in order to act, as one seems fit is a fundamental aspect of humanity. In many of the current days’ oppressive regimes and governments, people are not allowed to express their feelings openly, and they may be restricted from doing some things that do not affect any other person. This can be being forced to ascribe to a certain religion, ideologies or ways of life. However, as seen from the current uprisings in the Middle East and North Africa, this form of restriction tends to culture dissidence within people, and one point is reached where any anger or intolerance reaches the point of no return. When this happens, people tend to use force to fight for their freedom, and are even prepared to risk their lives in order to buy freedom.
Conclusion
John Stuart Mill's harm principle presents us with a reality of life such that people desire freedom. They should be allowed to experience and practice it as long as it does not interfere or pose a danger to others. However, it is also notable that human beings tend to exhibit different levels of soundness and critical thinking, depending on the external conditions that one is going through. Therefore, it is not necessary to allow some people to kill themselves just because they are going through a difficult time, yet this is a seasonal feeling, which should go away in a short while. There is a need to protect people even from themselves, although the definition of what constitutes a danger to oneself may vary from person to person, place to place or even situation to situation. It is difficult to come up with a universal definition of harm.
References
Gerson, G. (2002). From the State of Nature to Evolution in John Stuart Mill. Australian Journal of Politics & History, Sep2002, Vol. 48 Issue 3, p305-321
Kernohan, A. (2003). Accumulative Harms and the Interpretation of the Harm Principle. Social Theory & Practice, Vol. 19 Issue 1, p51-72, 22p
MILL, J. S. (1997). On Liberty, edited by Alburey Castell, New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc.
