Whilst the Harm Principle lays the rights of individuals in society out explicitly, there are strict guidelines that outline one’s role in society. The ‘Harm Principle’ demands that members of civilisation respect the rights of one another; and that “each person must bear his or her share of the labours and sacrifices incurred in defending society or its members” (Mill) Further, society may punish for acts by an individual that may be harmful to others, even if not a violation of rights, by the force of public opinion. This again raises an interesting point as it relies on rationality. Firstly, it must be asked who it is who makes the distinction of whether an act is harmful to another person and what a pertinent punishment should be. Clearly, the ‘Harm Principle’ contradicts the objective of every human being able to exercise their own rights, but at the same time, such a philosophy protects the rights of others, representing the fact that individuals have a role to play in society for it to function adequately.
However, when a person is only hurting him or herself, Mill states that people can advise him or her to adopt “self-regarding virtues” (Mill; 1989) but ultimately, each person has the complete freedom to make their own decision. If a person does not adopt qualities that others feel are important for personal wellbeing, society cannot publicly denounce these actions and beliefs, although they can hold their own personal negative opinions, actively encouraged by Mill. These private opinions are what ultimately may hurt a person who is not pursuing what society perceives as his or her own best interests. This is referred to as a natural penalty for holding beliefs that may be contrary to the majority in a democratic society. In addition to that natural penalty, Mill states that when someone is harming themselves,, the only harmed person is the perpetrator who is, in effect, giving and receiving their own punishment.
Mill does, however, imply the imperativeness of a clear and definitive distinction between where individual liberty takes precedence and where and when society has the right to intervene and throughout On Liberty, Mill refutes the notion that society is based upon a mutual contract but does however, agree with the fact that once an individual has entered into the greater society, an individual has a distinct obligation not violate others' rights, to contribute to the community, and not to hurt others in exchange in return for the protection and benefits that society offers.
Whilst Mill is explicit with what he deems the right of individuals in society, the most major encapsulation of the ‘harm principle’ provides for the wellbeing of others, who may be influenced by an individual’s actions. Mill does, however, deem that an act of law should only ever be made when it is inevitable that the respective action is going to result in harm to someone else. However, in all cases where a person's conduct affects only his or herself, Mill is very explicit in his philosophy that society may not and should not interfere in any way. Mill states that society may provide assistance to individuals with their personal affairs, but no one should provide suggestions on how an individual’s life should be lived, so far as it concerns him or herself, as he or she pleases and that every individual should be the final judge of their own personal issues and affairs. Further, Mill contends that “any inconveniences which are regarded as being inseparable from the unfavourable judgement of others are the only ones to which a person should ever be subjected for that portion of his conduct and character which affects his own good, but which does not affect the interest of others”. (Mill; 1989) Therefore, Mill suggests that a balance between achieving personal liberty and constraining liberty for the benefit of others is extremely important.
Mill feels that the state should interfere, by imposing consequences through the law, when a person's behaviour impacts others. This comes from the heart of the democratic system of government as it is accepted that the representatives of the majority have the right to legislate. When behaviour only impacts on one individual, the state should have no authority and should not intervene. Interestingly, Mill makes note that individuals should be punished for their actions if they are seriously affecting others “No society in which these liberties are not, on the whole, respected, is free, whatever may be its form of government; and none is completely free in which they do not exist absolute and unqualified. The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, as long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual” (Mill, 1859, pp 201). Mill believes that society’s judgements also provide punishment to offenders when they cannot be committed by law and actively encourages public scrutiny as part of the ‘harm principle’ which states clearly the fact that no society can function properly without such limitations in practice.
The ‘Harm Principle’ sets out a number of interesting points pertaining to the achievement of individual freedom and right within the greater society. However, Mill states, in On Liberty that individual rights and freedoms can only be achieved when there are limits and constraints in place. Thus, Mill argues the importance of a range of strict guidelines which should be followed by everyone in society to prevent others from being affected by another human being’s actions whilst at the same time still allowing personal autonomy.
REFERENCES
Gray, S. - "On liberty in focus", London 1991.
Mill, J.S. - "On liberty", John W. Parker and Son, West Strand, London 1859
Mill, J.S. – “On Liberty”, Cambridge University Press, London, 1989
