liberty

Question 1

what is the harm principle?

Answer 1

an individual’s freedom should only be restricted to prevent harm to others

Question 2

who created the harm principle and when?

Answer 2

John Stuart Mill in 1859, in his book ‘On Liberty’

Question 3

How do Mill (1859) and Feinburg (1972) define ‘harm’?

Answer 3

Mill- damage to our ‘interests’ which are based upon our rights
Feinburg- setback or invasion of a person’s welfare or vital interests

Question 4

Why are mills and feinburg’s harm definitions problematic?

Answer 4

the definition of ‘interests’ may differ from individual to individual

Question 5

what is the key issue in defining ‘harm’?

Answer 5

difficult to establish when an causes ‘harm’ rather than just ‘mere offence’

Question 6

What is Stephan’s (1874) counter argument to Mill’s value on liberty? and what metaphor does he give? (counter argument to justifying free speech?)

Answer 6

liberty isn’t always positive and progressive (as Mill’s harm prinicple relies on) and it’s effectiveness relies on how it is used
liberty is like fire - when it is controlled it has given us great technological advancements but if it is uncontrolled it can bring fear, danger and often disaster.

Question 7

what is a self regarding and other regarding action?

Answer 7

• an action that affects purely the agent

- an other-regarding actions as affecting or involving at least one other person

Question 8

does the harm principle justify intervention for other regarding or self regarding actions?

Answer 8

The ‘harm principle’ claims that while a government may regulate or supervise other-regarding actions to prevent harm to others, they have no justification for interfering in our self-regarding actions.

Question 9

why is it problematic that the harm principle justifies interfering on other regarding actions

Answer 9

it is very hard to find examples of purely self-regarding actions that have no third party affect which is a major flaw in the harm principle

Question 10

what is knowles’ (2001) dirty dentist example and what does it show about the harm principle?

Answer 10

a dentist fondles with a patient who is under general anaesthetic with no nurses or assistants to witness it. Despite the patient being unaware of the harm caused, the individual’s rights are still invaded and therefore the harm principle is not a a sufficient justification for interference

Question 11

Does mill’s harm principle believe in censorship? And what are his four reasons why?

Answer 11

• no he doesn’t as he believes that he believes in open debate and discussion.
• Mill also believes that you cant be certain the viewpoint is absolutely true.
• Even if we can reliably tell if people are mistaken, there may be snippets of truth (we may learn something about psychological connection between sex and violence from rape fantasies)
• Also if we can not be certain whether knowing the truth is more likely to lead to happiness or harm then we have no more reason to ban
• by hearing alternative views, we might be more confident in our own opinion

Question 12

What is Wolff’s (2006) argument for censorship?

Answer 12

that there is a danger with a false view not being suppressed as if the view is unchallenged and has no response to it, the view may gain popularity and lead to negative consequences that could cause harm

Question 13

What is Mill’s harm principle heavily reliant on?

Answer 13

relies on human progress

Question 14

What is Feinburg’s (1985) offence principle?

Answer 14

Distinguishes harm from offence. Feinburg claims offence is then said to be less serious than harm, and so the measures taken against it, and the punishments for causing it, should be less extreme

Question 15

name the 5 ways Feinburg claims offence can be caused

Answer 15

1. Affronts to senses - ie. if someone smells
2. disgust and revulsion
3. Ideological shock
4. Fear
5. Embarrassment and anxiety

Question 16

arguments for free speech

Answer 16

• by promoting debate and discussion, the truth can be discovered
• helps prevent exploitation and oppression
• promotes equality
• promotes democracy

Question 17

what example does sunstein (1995) give that demonstrates how open debate/free speech benefits society

Answer 17

a racially integrated beach where discussion on racial issues is banned. The government aims to promote racial harmony but is banning discussion a legitimate reason, especially when they have no evidence that discussion will promote violence

Question 18

What is sunstein’s (1995) main argument towards censorship?

Answer 18

Regulating content on the basis it is offence or may cause persuade others is an illegitimate justification for censorship

Question 19

who is a key theorist in regards to censoring pornography?

Answer 19

catherine mackinnon

Question 20

what are mackinnon’s main argument’s towards pornography?

Answer 20

• sexually explicit speech should be regulated not because it is offensive and sexually explicit but instead because it can cause harm through merging sex and violence or coercion.
• porn is a vehicle for men to learn about sex, she argues it leads to violence against women.
• porn itself is an act of subordination and silencing of women which is another reason it is not expression.

Question 21

name 3 ways pornography causes harm

Answer 21

1. Harm is produced to many of the actresses/models as they are often abused and mistreated in grotesque ways.
2. There is a connection between porn and violence against women.
3. Porn promotes behaviour that is degrading and dehumanizes women

Question 22

in 1987, donnerstein found that exposure to pornography made subjects more likely to what?

Answer 22

accept rape myths

Question 23

Forna (1992) argues that countries that legislate against ______ should also legislate against pornography? and have what example?

Answer 23

hate speech.
compared if images of women being humiliated or tortured for readers pleasure were of blacks/Asians/jews it would be a hate crime

Question 24

arguments against banning pornography

Answer 24

• it is vital for a functioning democracy to have open, free debate.
• Ronald dworkin argues whether it just causes mere offence rather than harm
• it is as ‘real’ as a kiss or someone crying would be in a film (argument against is that these aren’t explicit actions and the explicit actions in films, like violence, is fake)