Liberty, Paternalism and Authoritarianism

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised by any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." - John Stuart Mill.

Having started to read Mill's works in more detail than I previously have I'm interested to know what everyone thinks about Mill's principle. He intends it as a defence of diversity and individual excellence against the crushing weight of collective habit and popular morality (that in many cases has no philosophical basis). But even Mill, exceptionally Liberal for his own age, did not wish for some of the more extreme effects of this principle (allowing sex in public between consenting adults for example).

So where do you think we should draw the line between lisence to act and allowing intervention - either paternalistic (intervening because of concern for the individual) or authoritarian (because the act, is either percieved by you to be or definitely is according to an ethical theory, immoral)?

 

first of all it must be noted that Mill rocks my world. I have not read all of On Liberty yet but once i get the chance (once im done trying to fathom what the heck Kant was talking about, for one of my classes) im going to read all of it.

anyway i think that the line gets drawn basically with social norms. This however only applies to public places, what you do in your own house is up to you but dont interfere with other people.

aikiMac: i dont think that alexander is saying that you should preemptivly (sp) put people in jail in order to prevent a crime. i think hes saying that what are the standards or laws that society should put in place to prevent harm to others. where should the society draw the line on how to act when it affects others.

I think that Mill states that you draw the line paternalistically (is that a word? you knoww what i mean) when that person is an adult as deemed appropriate by the society. after that person is capable of making their own decisions they no longer are under paternalistic rule. this i personally agree with. its sort of a Sartreian view i think. people have the ability to make their own choices and shape their life how they want it. its their choice to do what they want and we should let them make their own choices

i think that people can be governed authoritarianly with respect to the public. this is what is guided by socital norms. and in this respect its relative to the society. if one society is not offended by public displays of sexuality then it should be allowed but if another society is offended then it should be kept private. This is his utilitarian aspect. what does the most good for the most people is the socital norms (i hope im not confusing his philosophy with anyone elses) as i stated a few lines up what you do to yourself is your business and people should respect that you have the ability to make the decisions for yourself.

there are however some grey areas with respect to Mills harm principal. Suicide for example. according to mill suicide is ok because that person should be allowed to make their own decisions, no one knows their justification for killing themselves so you cannot say it is wrong. however I woudl argue that killing yourself has a great potential to significantly harm other people around you. this is something i have been questioning since i started philosophy because i see both sides of the argument.

well im not sure if i presented Mills position correctly or justly but its pretty much where i stand so i guess i answered your question anyway.

 

I see a lot of grey here.

How does this apply to things like speeding?

If I choose not to wear a seatbelt while driving, I am putting myself at risk, but if someone runs into me, and it is their fault, will it not be them who has to pay the extra medical bills?

If you are under the influence of a mind altering drug, you are hurting yourself, but could be indangering others depending on what you are doing.

I could go on and on with examples such as these. All grey. If you really could seperate everything into black and white so easily then what would lawyers be for?

...Or maybe we shouldn't draw lines at all?

 

How does a person excercise power against their will? Is this a misquotation?

 

I completly agree with you about there being a lot of grey areas. but as a general rule i think its pretty good.

If your not wearing a seat belt your dumb. speeding can definatly hurt people so people shouldnt do it.

drugs are a grey area. i think that if people are doing them away from other people in moderate amounts and not getting to messed up so that they cant function normally it may be ok. but i am opposed to drug use so i guess my rule dosent agree with my position but whatever.

 

A quick twist on this whole thing. How does this pricipal apply to nations?

 

Ah! Yes! That was a misquotation. I'm sorry! It should read:

Yodaofcoolness: Mill back this up with a theory of right based on Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that the right thing to do is that which maximises the greatest pleasure for the greatest ammount of people. Basically the rights you have are those that will, generally speaking, cause the greatest amount of pleasure for the greatest ammount of people were everyone to follow them.

Hence wearing seatbelts, as a rule of thumb, will be most beneficial were everyone to do this. Therefore there should be a law that seatbelts should be worn. Mill justifies the principle quoted above on similar grounds: Liberty will, generally speaking lead to the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Hence people should be given as much Liberty as possible that is not in any violation of any other utilitarian right (individuals should not be free to kill each other, for example, as it violates the Utilitarian right to life).

Interestingly Mill did shy away from the more extreme implications of this principle, stating that things should not be allowed that offend public decency - a bit odd, considering he had just damned popular opinion as worthless in his writings.

Aikimac: Really good point. A bit like Minority Report, eh? To be honest I think Mill would say that yes you could lock someone away before they shot another person providing it was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that they were going to shoot that person.

I personally think Mill hit the nail right on the head. Extreme Liberal that I am I'd hold that the extreme implications of his principle are fine: People taking drugs for recreational purposes, sex/nudity in public, etc... As long as these don't endanger other people then I see no reason why there should be a law against them. There is a difference between mere 'offense' and serious 'harm' - the former is simply concerned with taste whereas the latter is with Morality.

I was interested in what people who disagree would say in response to Mill's theory.

EDIT: Chow, good question about nations, I like that! It's the right to invasion isn't it? I'll have a think on that one.

 

wow youre even more liberal than i am

 

'Harm' to other people can be interpreted in many ways. Physical harm is relatively easy to define, but what about emotional or mental harm?

Let's take the example that was used of public nudity. If I walked down the street naked then some people would just be amused, some would be mildly shocked, but some might be really upset. Is that causing them harm?

It's a very simplistic example, but I hope it serves to illustrate my point.