On Liberty
April 20th 2008 23:14
One of the interesting things about Mill's principle of Liberty is how he allies it with his belief in utilitarianism. The harm principle is one that i am sure to many people seems intuitively correct however there does seem to be some features of it which conflict with the idea of utilitarianism.
The two main conflicts i can see between the utilitarianism and the harm principle are that Mill claims that the fact that our actions offend people is not enough for them to be prohibited and that he does not accept paternalism. It seems clear that sometimes the offense caused by actions will outweigh the happiness gained by the actor who was permitted to perform them. How can it be claimed that a speech which offends a large group, for example, Christians, women or black people be deemed morally acceptable by a utilitarian ethic. It also seems clear that sometimes great suffering could be prevented by paternal intervention, stopping someone from becoming addicted to any kind of harmful substance seems to be an obvious example.
To understand why Mill doesn't see this conflicts as a problem we must understand that he is looking at how the harm principle will affect society over a long period of time. He believes that differing opinions and lifestyles are a progressive force for and will eventually lead to a better society and greater happiness. Offensive opinions may turn out to be correct, and if they are not they will encourage people to criticize and discuss why these opinions are incorrect, the same is true of the lifestyle choices that may have been prevented by paternal action.
The harm principle and utilitarianism do not conflict because differing lifestyles and opinions drive society to become more intelligent, more aware and, most importantly for a utilitarian, more happy.
The two main conflicts i can see between the utilitarianism and the harm principle are that Mill claims that the fact that our actions offend people is not enough for them to be prohibited and that he does not accept paternalism. It seems clear that sometimes the offense caused by actions will outweigh the happiness gained by the actor who was permitted to perform them. How can it be claimed that a speech which offends a large group, for example, Christians, women or black people be deemed morally acceptable by a utilitarian ethic. It also seems clear that sometimes great suffering could be prevented by paternal intervention, stopping someone from becoming addicted to any kind of harmful substance seems to be an obvious example.
To understand why Mill doesn't see this conflicts as a problem we must understand that he is looking at how the harm principle will affect society over a long period of time. He believes that differing opinions and lifestyles are a progressive force for and will eventually lead to a better society and greater happiness. Offensive opinions may turn out to be correct, and if they are not they will encourage people to criticize and discuss why these opinions are incorrect, the same is true of the lifestyle choices that may have been prevented by paternal action.
The harm principle and utilitarianism do not conflict because differing lifestyles and opinions drive society to become more intelligent, more aware and, most importantly for a utilitarian, more happy.
| 46 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by jon
Orble News
Urban Hint
Blog Adviser
Jon's Bookmarks
Debate Battle
Orblepedia
Orble Notes
Sydney WeekendNotes
You may also need to add the email address admin -at- orblemail.com to your address book in order to receive Orble admin emails in the future.
Thanks,
Jon.
(Guy who runs Orble with Charles)