The Harm Principle

The harm principle is articulated most clearly in John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, though it is also articulated in John Locke's Second Treatise of Government and in the work of Wilhelm von Humboldt, to whom Mill is obliged and discusses at length. Mill argues that the sole purpose of law should be to stop people from harming others and that should people want to participate in victimless crimes, crimes with no complaining witness, such as gambling, drug usage, engaging in prostitution, then they should not be encroached in doing so.

Mill defines the harm principle in Chapter One as follows:

The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, 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 civilized 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.

Legalize cannabis! Why can't the world be as intelligent and tolerant as the Dutch? :stoned:

'My choice is what I choose to do,
And if I'm causing no harm, it shouldn't bother you.

Your choice is who you choose to be,
And if you're causin' no harm, then you're alright with me.'

Law based on common sense? Yeah that'll happen.lol

I think you need to look at the idea of "harm" more broadly.

Some of the crimes you propose to be victimless, including prostitution and drug use, might not only be harmful to those engaged in it (prostitutes, for example, are in many cases sex slaves), but cause widespread public health problems (think of the burden to the state if it has to care for people addicted to and sickened by hard drug use).

I am a libertarian and in full support of the "don't tread on me" mentality. But for the sake of a healthy society, there needs to be a certain level of governmental oversight. I suppose defining that level is the real question. I'm just suggesting that people don't lose sight of the forest through all the trees.

Good post dannyboy. I agree with you to a certain extent. There should always be an FDA, a branch that deals with prostitution and things like that to be safe, but if noone is hurt than it's alright with me. plus the harm principle would cover topics like sex slaves and people getting diseases, etc. If you get a disease from it, it's your fault and your problem to deal with.

I have to read Mill's 'On Liberty' for my philosophy class right now so i thought i'd mention it here and see what responces i got. Some good one, yeah, what constitutes harm? I don't believe one consuming cannabis in any way harms another person, allow that no one else is present in their presence, Therefore, i believe it a justifiable reason why cannabis should be legal.

But this 'On Libery' is pretty crazy and all new to me... I have to write some essay and critically analyze whether i agree that democracy is a 'tyranny of the majority' There's so much to think about and i've only just started. Man, i love philosophy, there's probably so many fascinating texts and essays out there just waiting to be experianced.