Political Philosophy: Liberty and Rights
5. The Harm Principle
James Stacey Taylor is an associate professor at the College of New Jersey, where he spends a lot of time thinking and writing about autonomy.
According to Prof. James Stacey Taylor, John Stuart Mill's harm principle has been one of the most influential principles in the classical liberal tradition. It states that the only reason to restrict the action of another individual is to prevent harm to others. If someone is harming him- or herself, we are justified only in persuading him or her, not coercing through government. In theory, the harm principle has a lot to offer to those who frame laws. Unfortunately, it has not been thoroughly used in practice.
- On Liberty [Book]: John Stuart Mill's statement of classical liberalism and the harm principle.
- John Stuart Mill: Traditional and Revisionist Interpretations [Article]: John N. Gray provides a philosophical treatment of J. S. Mill that highlights his development of the harm principle.
- Freedom of Speech [Article]: David van Mill summarizes the philosophy of freedom of speech with reference to the harm principle.
- Defending the Undefendable [Book]: Walter Block attempts to show how capitalist acts between consenting adults are justified.
Use these questions to enhance your understanding of the topic. We recommend watching the featured video first; the suggested resources will also help.
- Login or register to post comments
- Back to Top
Comments
I think the harm principle is probably the only rule any society needs.
Also known as the non-aggression principle.
The major objection to this would be what if the beer was tainted? Would anyone have the authority to force aid on anyone else?
Then it is up to the drinker to decide if it is worth the risk.
The rule would apply differently if the seller of the beer fraudulently tainted it and the drinker in question was not aware of it. In that case it would be ethical to intervene in order to prevent undesired harm from taking place since the drinker did not explicitly consent to whatever outcome may result from drinking it.
Quite possibly the most important tenet of reasonable government that has been ignored for far too long.