Part 1A Paper 4: Set texts/ Mill Lecture 1: The Harm Principle. Chris Thompson

Transcription

1 Part 1A Paper 4: Set texts/ Mill Lecture 1: The Harm Principle Chris Thompson 1

2 Overview On Liberty Lecture 1: The Harm Principle Lecture 2: Free Speech Lecture 3: Objections to FS Offence Lecture 4: Objections to HP - Paternalism The Subjection of Women Lecture 5: Sex and Gender; Nature/ Nurture Lecture 6: Marriage and Equality Lecture 7: Individuality and progress Summary and common themes Lecture 8: Utilitarianism 2

3 Overview On Liberty Lecture 1: The Harm Principle Lecture 2: Free Speech Lecture 3: Objections to FS Offence Lecture 4: Objections to HP - Paternalism The Subjection of Women Lecture 5: Sex and Gender; Nature/ Nurture Lecture 6: Marriage and Equality Lecture 7: Individuality and progress Summary and common themes Lecture 8: Utilitarianism 3

4 Readings MILL, J.S., On Liberty, chs. 1, 4 and 5. GRAY, J., Mill on Liberty: A Defence (London: Routledge, 1983), chs. 1 & 3. TEN, C.L., Mill on Liberty (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), ch. 4 Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entries. 4

5 Overview 1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for interference? 5

6 Overview 1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for interference? 6

7 1. Biography of Mill

8 1. Biography of Mill Born in Pentonville, London Home-schooled Son of James Mill Family friends with Jeremy Bentham, David Ricardo Corresponded with Auguste Comte Godfather to Bertrand Russell 8

9 1. Biography of Mill Important relationship with Harriet Taylor MP and social reformer On Liberty (1859) Utilitarianism (1863) The Subjection of Women (1869) 9

10 Overview 1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for interference? 10

11 2. The Harm Principle The goal is to determine the conditions under which it is permissible to interfere with another person. The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion [Ch.2] 11

12 2. The Harm Principle It is only permissible to interfere with another individual when interference is necessary to prevent harm to others. That principle is, that the 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 civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. [Ch.1] 12

13 2. The Harm Principle Why? Broadly utilitarian justification: Overall we are better off in a society that observes this principle We tend to have a better idea of what is good for us than society does. Note: does not apply to children or barbarians 13

14 Overview 1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for interference? 14

15 3. What counts as harm? 1. Bodily injury. 15

16 3. What counts as harm? 1. Bodily injury. E.g. assault. 16

17 3. What counts as harm? 2. Protection of property, enforcement of contracts. 17

18 3. What counts as harm? 2. Protection of property, enforcement of contracts. every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest. This conduct consists first, in not injuring the interests of one another; or rather certain interests, which, either by express legal provision or by tacit understanding, ought to be considered as rights [Ch.4] 18

19 3. What counts as harm? 3. Actions as well as failure to act 19

20 3. What counts as harm? 3. Actions as well as failure to act A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage, things which whenever it is obviously a man's duty to do, he may rightfully be made responsible to society for not doing. A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. [Ch.1] Note we face an epistemic issue here. Must be more cautious in interfering. 20

21 3. What counts as harm? 4. Actual harm and risk of harm 21

22 3. What counts as harm? 4. Actual harm and risk of harm Whenever, in short, there is a definite damage, or a definite risk of damage, either to an individual or to the public, the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality or law. [Ch.4] 22

23 3. What counts as harm? If none of the previous conditions apply, then we are left with a purely self-regarding action. If an agent s action (or inaction) does not (actually or potentially) physically harm another person (or another person s fundamental interests), then there is no justification for interference. Purely self-regarding actions become like trump cards we cannot interfere with such actions just to benefit society as a whole. 23

24 3. What counts as harm? But... No person is an entirely isolated being; it is impossible for a person to do anything seriously or permanently hurtful to himself, without mischief reaching at least to his near connections, and often far beyond them. [Ch.4] If a person damages their body or mental faculties, they harm their dependents and other people who depend on them. If a person damages their property, they harm their dependents and community. If a person engages in vices, they set a bad example. 24

25 3. What counts as harm? OK But to be clear it is the harm caused that is the problem, not the action itself. We are still left with the problem that almost any action harms another person (if not directly, at least indirectly). 25

26 Overview 1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for interference? 26

27 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for interference? Sufficient: If Harm Then Interference 27

28 4. Is Harm necessary and Sufficient: sufficient for interference? If Harm Then Interference No it must by no means be supposed, because damage, or probability of damage, to the interests of others, can alone justify the interference of society, that therefore it always does justify such interference. [Ch.5] E.g. Competitive examinations 28

29 4. Necessary and Sufficient Necessary: If Interference Then Harm 29

30 4. Necessary and Sufficient Necessary: If Interference Then Harm Unclear: There are also many positive acts for the benefit of others, which he may rightfully be compelled to perform; such as, to give evidence in a court of justice; to bear his fair share in the common defence, or in any other joint work necessary to the interest of the society of which he enjoys the protection; and to perform certain acts of individual beneficence, such as saving a fellow-creature's life, or interposing to protect the defenceless against ill-usage [Ch.1] 30

31 4. Necessary and Sufficient Necessary: If Interference Then Harm saving a fellow-creature's life = clearly a case of preventing harm. to give evidence in a court of justice = not so clearly a case of preventing harm. If we allow that failure to give evidence in court harms another person, then almost anything can justify interference. 31

32 In sum The Harm Principle: That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. [Ch.1] Harm can be to body/ property; actual / risk; caused by actions/ failure to act. 32

33 Problems: In sum 1. There do not seem to be any purely selfregarding actions. Every action seems to harm other people. 2. Harm is neither necessary nor sufficient for interference: We are justified in interfering when there is no harm. In some cases of harm, we are not justified in interfering. 33

34 Next week Lecture 2: Free Speech 34