From Last time
Harm principle
Necessary not sufficient condition
Question of interpretation.
---Actions that increase probability of
harm
---- psychological as well as physical
harm and property damage
Is there a slippery slope to vacuity in the
HP?
Freedom of Thought and
Discussion.
(1) human fallibity. The repressed belief might be
true.
(2) Even if it is false, it is still better to express it.
This encourages people to come up with
arguments for their views, instead of just
accepting a belief dogmatically.
(3) The free expression of dissent encourages
people to think about what their belief means.
(4) Even if a belief is mostly false, it may have a
grain of truth. The best way to discover this is to
allow for free and open discussion.
The state may intervene in a person’s life
when they act in a way that directly harms
others.
Personal lifestyle choices are left to the
individual.
Society cannot be trusted to make
decisions for individuals. Each of us knows
our own life best.
Experimentation is the only way to
determine what ways of living our best.
Only by making choices for ourselves can
we develop our ability to think practically
and make decisions for ourselves. (even
bad decisions are good.
What about indirect harm?
Objection: Actions that influence me
almost always influence other people as
well.
Mill: You can be held accountable for the
harm to others (failing to take care of your
family, not paying back debts, etc.) But not
for gambling, or being a drunk.
Test cases
Laws restricting drug use
Gun Control laws
Seatbelt laws
Pornography
Polygamy
Gay Marriage
Suicide
What would Mill say about each of these cases?
When, if ever do you think the State should
intervene in a person’s life?