Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
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
Overview
1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for
interference?
5
Overview
1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for
interference?
6
1. Biography of Mill
1806-1873
7
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
1. Biography of Mill
• Important relationship with Harriet Taylor • MP and social reformer • On Liberty (1859) • Utilitarianism (1863) • The Subjection of Women (1869)
9
Overview
1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for
interference?
10
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
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
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
Overview
1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for
interference?
14
3. What counts as harm?
1. Bodily injury.
15
3. What counts as harm?
1. Bodily injury.
E.g. assault.
16
3. What counts as harm?
2. Protection of property, enforcement of contracts.
17
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
3. What counts as harm?
3. Actions as well as failure to act
19
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
3. What counts as harm?
4. Actual harm and risk of harm
21
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
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
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
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
Overview
1. Biography of Mill 2. The Harm Principle 3. What counts as Harm? 4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for
interference?
26
4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for interference?
• Sufficient: If Harm Then Interference
27
4. Is Harm necessary and sufficient for interference?
• Sufficient: 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
4. Necessary and Sufficient
• Necessary: If Interference Then Harm
29
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
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
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
In sum • Problems: 1. There do not seem to be any purely self-
regarding 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
Next week…
• Lecture 2: Free Speech
34
![Lecture 1a [compatibility mode]](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/54b9cbc14a795982788b45b3/lecture-1a-compatibility-mode.jpg)
