Political and Social Philosophy (Essay Sample)

John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle
Name
Course Details
Date
John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle
The most viable way of proving the usefulness of any good theory or principle developed by philosophical thinking is to apply it in solving our daily problems. This will help us determine the extent to which the principle accommodates the existing realities in life. Some of these principles and theories include John Stuart Mill’s principle. It is important to examine the principle and its practicality in the contemporary society. However, it is worth noting that Mill did name the principle after himself it was a nomenclature given by his commentators and readers.[Capaldi, Nicholas, and İsmail Hakkı Yılmaz. 2011. John Stuart Mill.]
His main idea was to demonstrate the understanding of individualism and utilitarian perspectives in the society, which could help, safeguard human rights. However, it is not the only principle used to safeguard human rights (Capaldi & İsmail 2011, 45)
John Stuart Mill organised his thoughts and came up with a practical socio-political base and harmonious explanation of the existence of all people in a society. His principle states that for people to coexist peacefully in a society, the limit of freedom, rights and powers of individuals in the society must be clearly defined by actor in a society. It further states that the exercise of liberties applies only when an individual’s interest is injured.[Ingram, David. 2006. Law. London [u.a.]: Continuum.]
In other words, freedom is achieved when people pursue their own god in their own way as long as the pursuit does not affect others. Therefore, in a broader perspective if an act harms the utilitarian effort of an individual, the society is obligated to intervene (Ingram 2002, 67).
This is important for nurturing the sense of responsibility towards other individuals, so as not to interfere with their pursuit of personal goals.
The stimulus that instigated Mill to come up with his principle can be attributed to the crisis that existed in Europe during the French revolution and the Napoleonic wars. A lot of pressure was being exerted on the political systems to consider embracing fraternity, liberty and equity among the people. This was the period when the spirit of equal representation and democracy was being spread across the continent with a lot of vigour. The base of the principle is anchored on the advancement of representative governments. Mill discovered that it is significant and necessary to have democratic political systems for the advancement of respect of human rights and freedom .[Veatch, Robert M. 1997. Medical ethics. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.]
However, he acknowledged the fact that representation alone could not cure the recurrence of egocentrism among the ruling class. He then developed ways that acted as a driving element in his hate for tyranny of numbers. (Veatch 1997, 89)
The principle assumes that the society is a system made up of human beings who are separate entities from each other. These separate entities are social and political animals and are expected to have different opinions from each other. The idea of grouping human beings into a society brings up the issue of social relations. Miller’s principle makes sure that we understand the origin, purpose and nature of the society, through these we become conscious of the place of human rights in the society and their acceptable membership and responsibilities to a particular group within a social system or government . It is this important position of the principle that reveals the strenuous social political relations in a given system. The socio political relations may be either strained or cordial. Mill identifies ethnic domination, unrepresentative socio-political structures and lack of integration as some of the factors responsible for violation of rights in a society. Social integration can only exist where there is mutual trust and respect for freedom of individuals, this is mostly needed in plural societies.[Chatterjee, Deen K. 2011. Encyclopedia of global justice Vol. 1 Vol. 1. Dordrecht [u.a.]: Springer.]
Mill has made many distinctions in his effort to justify his principle. First, he makes a distinction between harming one’s self and harming other individuals. In a second perspective, he brings up a difference in harming one’s interest and harming the same person’s interest when he willingly accepts the consequences.[Capaldi, Nicholas, and İsmail Hakkı Yılmaz. 2011. John Stuart Mill.]
In this line of thinking, Mill interprets interests as rights. Nevertheless, he differentiates it from harming one’s interest that is regarded as rights and harming what a person likes which leads to displeasure. The principle also clarifies the forms of social reactions such as social craving among other forms. (Capaldi & İsmail 2011, 90)
These distinctions and explanations have left a gap in the area of interference. Mill tries to explain interference by analysing human conduct. All the interpretations that he gives are linked to the utilitarian prism. The principle allows social intervention when interests that are regarded as rights in a utilitarian sense are compromised. There is however, a weakness in the principle because it denies societal intervention when an individual’s interests are harmed by their own free and voluntary participation. This generates a point of critique because it is difficult to calculate and determine which interests should be considered acceptable to the society to warrant social intervention when harmed. On the other which interests when harmed causes us mere displeasure. Critically social intervention should have some form of utilitarian filter to help determine if an intervention is needed when interests of an individual are jeopardised.[Veatch, Robert M. 1997. Medical ethics. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.]
The principle also emphasizes on harming others without punishment by law but punishment is through opinion. There is also the element of distinction between social coercion and social disapproval. The society is likely to approve some ones behaviour for instance if he has excellent academic background but in another twist he can be disapproved if he loses the academic credibility. This is a spontaneous form of social reaction and cannot be easily predicted. The principle can be summarised using two strands of thinking first, if an action does not violate the rights of others or harms their rights voluntarily the society should not intervene. On the other hand, if an action harms interest that have a utilitarian sense then the society should take action against such behaviours. Evaluation of this line of thinking reveals that there are areas where social interventions are not adequately justifiable. The justification of the interventions should be based on a filter but no one can prove if the calculations for intervention are enough to correct unjustified actions against an individual.[Chatterjee, Deen K. 2011. Encyclopedia of global justice Vol. 1 Vol. 1. Dordrecht [u.a.]: Springer.]
As far as human rights are concerned, the concept of justice is a scared and binding part of human morality. Therefore, good principles are those that have the best consequences. Justice also brings into action the right of individuals to be treated fairly in every segment of the society. Several competing principles and theories have been designed for the purpose of protection of human rights. It is essential to comprehend the foundations of these principles and their application in the society. It is significant to note that the approaches given to human rights have different strengths and vulnerabilities in dealing with challenges posed by utilitarianism and relativism. Many thinkers have argued that human rights are safeguarded to protect the inherent dignity of an individual. Strong argument have been passed across especially by western liberals that human rights must be linked to the protection and promotion of human dignity these however, does not touch on the interest as seen in Mill’s principle.
For example, there are principles that were advanced by Thomas Aquinas in the summa theological. This stated that there exist good behaviours that are naturally accepted by the society because God ordained them. Reason and critical thinking determine actions that are considered right. The extent to which these ideas could safeguard human rights is anchored on divine authorship and God decided what limits should be linked to human political activities. However, the extent to which these principles can safeguard human rights is limited to religion and religious foundations of Christianity alone.[Chatterjee, Deen K. 2011. Encyclopedia of g...