|
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ono asked:
|
|
Under what circumstances does Mill think it permissible for the state to use force against a citizen?
Why then and only then? How can we adapt Mill's principle?
|
|
============
|
|
In On LibertyMill clearly says that the only justifiable cases where an individual can be acted upon
against there will is if their actions will cause harm to another individual. And even then force may not
be justifiable, we should first aim at persuasion, apply social pressure and the like rather than actual
physical force.
|
|
Mill holds this position (sometimes called the liberty principle or the harm principle) I think because, in
accordance with his utilitarianism it would be the best way to maximise happiness. At first these two
philosophies may seem incompatible, for utilitarianism would allow just the kind of interference that
the liberty principle forbids. For example, the liberty principle forbids us to interfere with another liberty
even if what they do causes them harm, such as a drug addict, or even a choice someone makes that
we will know will make that person unhappy. However on utilitarian grounds we would be fully justified
in stepping in and pointing out the unforeseen consequences of the choice the person makes, or in
stopping the person becoming addicted to drugs.
|
|
Your question gets us into the very heart of Mill's philosophy and into a current debate as to just what
it was Mill was up to. Did he think that freedom was an intrinsically good thing itself and therefore
incompatible with the greatest happiness? Or is happiness the only good, if so is liberty a nice side
show and less important?
|
|
I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Mill is clear that happiness is the greatest good, but
that liberty is the only source that will guarantee that happiness is achieved in the long haul. In this
sense liberty is intrinsically good, but only when it is contributing to our happiness. Mill gives various
reasons why on utilitarian grounds individual liberty should be protected, probably the most important
one is his idea that there should be as many diverse opinions as possible, leading to what Mill calls
'experiments in living' which when successful result in social progress and general happiness.
|
|
Brian Tee
Dept of Philosophy
University of Sheffield
|
|