Mill’s main justification, however, is that liberty is good for the person who has it. Mill, however, provides various arguments for the principle, such as the general benefits accorded to society when people are free. Why should we accept this principle? Sometimes liberty is thought of as a fundamental value, intrinsically good for its own sake, for which no further justification need, or could, be given. Some major practical implications of the Liberty Principle are that people should have freedom of thought and speech, freedom of tastes and pursuits, and freedom of association, so long as we don’t harm others. (Please note that for Mill, and for this article, freedom means no restrictions or coercion from society.) As Mill put it, “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” (John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, 1859, ch.1).
MILL HARM PRINCIPLE SUMMARY FREE
His Liberty Principle states that people should be free from restrictions as long as they are not harming others. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) had such a principle. How much individual liberty should people have? Is there a general principle for how freedom should and should not be restricted? Some restrictions of freedom – such as laws against murder and assault – seem reasonable, while others may not.
But we also have a large degree of freedom compared with people in other societies. People in liberal democracies have various restrictions on their freedom – there are laws against defamation and breaking contracts, for example. SUBSCRIBE NOW Liberty & Equality Mill, Liberty & Euthanasia Simon Clarke argues that deciding when to die is a matter of individuality.
0 kommentar(er)
