John Stuart Mill On Liberty

The question Under what circumstances is it morally legitimate for the state to intervene in a person’s life? Paternalism: The state is justified in intervening when intervention is needed to benefit or prevent harm to people. Anarchism: the state is never morally legitimate in compelling people to act in any way.

The Harm Principle Mill: The state is justified in intervening in a person’s life, but only when that person is acting in a way that is harmful to others. Harm to self does not justify Governmental intervention.

Necessary vs. Sufficient Conditions If A then B. A is the sufficient condition, B is the necessary condition. Being decapitated is a sufficient condition for death. But its not a necessary condition. There are other ways you can die Oxygen is a necessary condition for animal life. If there are animals, oxygen is present. But Oxygen is not sufficient. You can have Oxygen w/o there also being animals.

The harm principle is a necessary condition for intervention Mill does not think every time there is harm, the gov’t needs to intervene. Its not H, therefore I. Rather, if the government intervenes, there has to be harm. I, therefore H. Sometimes intervention might be impractical, or have unpleasant side effects.

Action and Inaction Harm includes both harm by action and harm by inaction. A person who refuses to serve on a jury or testify in court is harming by inaction. So too someone who fails to serve in the army when needed. The state has a right to compel when a person is causing harm either by action or by inaction.

What constitutes producing harm? Actually producing Harm Probably producing harm Increasing the probability of harm Example: Drunk driving. Most people think it is legitimate for the state to prevent people from driving drunk, even though driving drunk is not actually harming anyone. It is rather increasing the probability of harm.

What is harm? Physical harm Property damage Psychological harm? Should the state intervene when a person’s mental state is harmed or if they are offended? Example: death threats, sexual harassment. But what about offense? Public sex or nudity. Garish lawn ornaments?

Is there a slippery slope? IF we do not allow psychological harm to count, then the state cannot intervene in cases in which most people think they should. But does this open the floodgates to considering any act that someone might find offensive to be harmful Does this make the Harm Principle useless as a defense of liberty?

Freedom of Thought and Discussion. (1) human fallibity. The repressed belief might be true. (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.