|
Spencer Ross
Student #0026660
Political Theory I 160-231A
Professor Alan Patten
TA: Christine Straehle (Friday, 2:30-3:30 p.m.)
Grader: Csilla Kiss
November 29, 2000
Essay- John Stuart Mill's
Position on Paternalism and the Harm Principle
The debate over state
interference in personal liberties has been a long-standing
issue since the beginning of the first types of state or federal
government. Various
arguments have been presented for both sides of the
addition/removal of liberty from theindividual in order to maintain a civil and just society for all
to live in. One of the mostimportant political philosophers, John Stuart Mill, wrote two
important essays to address this issue. The first essay, "Utilitarianism,"
addresses the need for the happiness of all. The second essay, "On Liberty," addresses the need for
diminutive state intervention in
order to respect personal liberties. In "On Liberty"
however, Mill stresses the importance
of the individual and the need for government to not inhibit
these liberties through
paternalistic means. With his anti-paternalistic stance argued in
"On Liberty," Mill
becomes one of the leading thinkers of liberal ideology.
Mill's basic philosophical premises are that individual liberty
is necessary as the
basis for a functional government and functional society.
"Over himself, over his own
body and mind, the individual is sovereign," he asserts. The
premise of "On Liberty" is
something Mill calls the "harm principle." The harm
principle says that a person makes decisions and lives with the consequences, but that no one else
should have to live with those consequences.
"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 a
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 opinions of others,
to do so would be wise, or even right" (p. 14).
This means that the
interest of the means that the interests of the individual are
solely his own, and that neither the state, nor anyone else, has
the right to interfere for the person's own good. This type of interference that Mill is against
is what we shall refer to
as paternalistic, as the state acts as a fatherly figure to
prevent the individual from doing
harm unto himself. In the second chapter of the essay, Mill
states that man has the
freedom to express his own opinion- a freedom we could otherwise
call "freedom of speech." Whether a man's word is true or false, Mill
believes that he is entitled to speak his mind for three reasons (Prof. Alan Patten, McGill University,
15 Nov. 2000).
The first reason is that there is the possibility that what the
man has to say is, in fact, truth even if it contradicts the viewpoint of society in
general. The second reason is
that a man's word has the capability of challenging our own
beliefs, making us question
what information we are fed has the potential to be true and what
information might be
false. This leads to the third reason Mill believes in freedom of
speech- that through questioning our own beliefs, we will have the determination to
strengthen our positions
on what truth is or isn't.
As an example, we might use the plight of the rapper, Eminem, to
enter Canada to
perform at a concert. Lyrics from Eminem's CD(s) have been known
to be violent,
vulgar, homophobic, and misogynistic, yet his album sales still
top the music charts.
Several Canadians protested Eminem's entry into the country as a
result of the fear that it
will promote violence and bigotry. According to Mill however,
Eminem should not only have the right to perform, but the right to say whatever he wants
to on stage. State
prevention of Eminem's performance would be paternalistic, and
does not follow in accordance with the harm principle (Conference meeting, led by
Christine Straehle,
McGill University, 17 November, 2000.).
In spite of this, Mill does allow for justified paternalism on
the grounds that as
soon as there might be reasonable doubt for harm to be done to
the general will,
consequence can be questioned.
"The acts of an
individual may be hurtful
to others, or wanting in due consideration
for their welfare, without going the length
of violating any of their constituted rights.
The offender may then be justly punished
by opinion, though not by law. As soon as
any part of a person's conduct affects pre-
judicially the interests of others, society has
jurisdiction over it, and the question whether
the general welfare will or will not be pro-
moted by interfering with it, becomes open
to discussion" (p. 183-4)
Therefore, regardless of
what Eminem raps about, if the messages of his words
are found to directly cause harm unto another man, then according
to Mill, Eminem
should be held responsible. Justified paternalism occurs when the
personal liberties of
one are encroached upon consequential to the personal liberties
of another.
This same justified paternalism also holds true for a man whose
actions are found
to directly cause harm unto another man. In chapter three of
"On Liberty," Mill
advocates the need for expressive liberty- or "freedom of
action." Since the general goal
of the harm principle promotes the liberty of the individual,
Mill hopes that freedom of
action will eventually result in a more diverse society that
evolves as a result of its
individuals' experiences.
"But if he
refrains from molesting others
in what concerns them, and merely acts
according to his own inclination and
judgment in things which concern himself,
the same reasons which show that opinion
should be free, prove also that he should
be allowed, without molestation, to carry
his opinions into practice at his own cost"
(p. 62-3).
By gaining experience,
Mill believes that a man becomes less conformist and
more individual. He no longer is assimilated into society, but
instead, provides his own
voice with his diverse background. With more individual liberty,
society becomes unique
and each person plays a key role in it rather than just a drone.
As exemplified in class on several occasions, the use of
marijuana and other drugs
is such a case where Mill believes there should be no
paternalistic action by the government. According to Mill, man should be allowed to smoke
marijuana if he so
chooses because his individual liberty permits him to do so. One
could say that our laws that prohibit use of these substances tend to be written by
people who have tried the
substances for themselves. Based on their own experiences, they
decided it would be
encroaching on the potential liberties of others. However, Mill
would probably say the
substances would affect each person individually, and the
prevention of using them should be disallowed. While these laws to prohibit these drugs
have the possibility that
they are in the interest of the general societal will, it is not
in the interest of the individual
to prohibit these drugs. A drug-induced experience for one person
may not be the same
as a drug-induced experience for another person. Thus, Mill's
only justification for
paternalism in an instance like this would be if the consequences
of a drugged up man
caused harm unto another man. As stated before, paternalism is
only justifiable once the
consequences of a person encroach on another man's liberties.
Mill concludes "On Liberty" by reasserting, again, why
the majority of
paternalistic actions are not necessary and that the state has no
right to interfere with a
person's individual liberty. Mill's first point is that there the
government has no business
to determine what is best for an individual. Governments are made
up of individuals, and
like individuals, governments offer a certain level of fallible
judgment. Mill then
assumes that man has the intellectual capability to make personal
decisions that are in his
own best interest. Whether these decisions are in his best
interest or not, the individual
still has the opportunity to gain new knowledge from his actions
or words, this
contributing something new to the background of society. Lastly,
Mill concludes than
any state interference or government prevention would thus end up
granting the state
more power against the individual and further remove the
liberties of man. Thus, the
people would be assimilated into government and vice versa.
Paternalistic interference,
while justified in rare cases, has generally been concluded by
Mill to be detrimental to
individual liberties. Logically argued, "The worth of a
State, in the long run, is the worth
of the individuals composing it; and a State which postpones the
interests of their mental
expansion and elevation… will find that with small men no
great thing can really be
accomplished…" (p. 128)
|
