rewind
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
1:34 PM
John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle
The harm principle states 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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right...The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign. ”
Basically, J.S Mill is an advocate of freedom of speech. He believes that everyone should have their own choice to do what they want, to speak what they feel is correct, without being censored, all it would be an infringement of their human rights. The Harm Principle works on the assumption that every adult has full control over their own actions. Everyone should be allowed to speak freely, unless what they say harms others. And by harm, J.S Mill means direct harm such as physical injury or damage to property. He even suggests that it is of beneficial effect to have an opposing idea or view; much like “survival of the fittest”, it is only through argument and critical assessment of your own idea, then can you fully believe in it, not just by accepting it.
I do agree, to a certain extent, with the Harm Principle. I do not believe that we should be disallowed access to certain views, opinions, or other forms of media on topics of sensitive issues.
The problem, though, is that freedom of speech is not just a simple black and white issue. There are many areas in which one person’s perception of freedom of speech is different, and overlapping, with another’s assumption of free speech.
In today’s self centered society, many insist on their human rights, that there should be freedom of speech; since it is their thoughts, their beliefs, their opinions, no other person should exercise control over it. However, what many fail to understand is that it is not about them themselves alone. There are billions other people out there, each with their own opinion, their own thoughts and beliefs. Evidently, there are bound to be instances where your personal belief infringes another, and your views will be challenged by others. This is where the Harm Principle comes in. According to what J.S Mill says, you are free to say “Islam is not a true religion”. If you say it to yourself, that is perfectly fine. Otherwise, if you announce it on national TV, you are liable to censorship. Obviously, it is impossible not to cause harm to others with this opinion. Such a view would spark controversy, causing rage amongst Muslims and possibly even riots, thereby causing harm, as was the case in the ridicule of Prophet Muhammad through cartoons published in Danish newspapers. This is when censorship has to be put in place, and there is no total freedom of speech.
What I do not agree with, though, is that J.S Mill’s Harm principle only applies to adults. According to him, children should not be granted freedom. I feel that it should not be so as children, however young they are, form their own opinions and have their own views too. Should it be so that they cannot have total freedom just because their thinking is not matured or fully formed? After all, children eventually grow into adults. I feel that they too, should have rights on their freedom of speech, so that they can learn from young that they need to take responsibility for their actions.
Furthermore, John Stuart Mill lived in the nineteenth century. Since then, human interaction has evolved. What the Harm Principle states may not be as applicable as it was back then. However, it is this very principle concerning liberty that was the forerunner of this very important concept which continues to cause much debate today, one hundred and fifty years after it was written.
References:
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2004/06/on-liberty.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/freedom-speech/
http://davidhildebrand.org/teaching/handouts/mill.php