philosopher v philosopher

Question 1

hobbes v mill

Answer 1

• Hobbes: Strong government is needed; people trade freedom for security. Laws define liberty, and resisting authority leads to chaos.
• Mill: Individual freedom is essential; only harm to others justifies restrictions. Beware of both government and societal oppression.

Question 2

berlin v taylor/pettit

Answer 2

Berlin vs. Taylor/Pettit – Liberty Debate

• Berlin: Negative liberty (freedom from interference) is essential. Positive liberty is dangerous—it can justify control over individuals.
• Taylor: Negative liberty is too narrow; true freedom requires self-mastery and overcoming social barriers.
• Pettit: Non-interference isn’t enough; real freedom means freedom from domination, requiring laws to prevent unchecked power.
• Key Difference: Berlin values being left alone, while Taylor & Pettit argue true freedom needs structure and protection.

Question 3

applied harm principle in r v malmo-levine/caine

Answer 3

Harm Principle in R v Malmo-Levine; R v Caine

• Issue: Challenged marijuana laws using Mill’s harm principle (laws should only restrict actions that harm others).
• Ruling: The Supreme Court rejected this argument—Parliament can criminalize acts for public welfare, not just harm prevention.
• Impact: The harm principle is not a constitutional limit on Canadian law; restrictions on freedom can be justified beyond direct harm.