Principles and arguments Flashcards
Mill’s Harm Principle
According to the Harm Principle, interference with one’s liberty to act is justified only if the act harms the interests of another. In other words, interference with one’s liberty to act is justified only to prevent harm to others. One’s own good is not sufficient reason for interference with one’s liberty to act. If the act harms no one but oneself, interference with one’s liberty to carry out the act is not justified.
Exceptions for Mill’s Harm Principle
Children, individuals below legal age and those who require the care of others. For these exceptions, interference with their liberty to act for their own good is justified.
Paternalism
Paternalism: action that limits a person’s or group’s liberty or autonomy and is intended to promote their own good.
Conditions:
- There is a restriction of liberty
- Restriction of liberty is for the good of the person whose liberty is restricted
- “Good” is defined by the paternalist.
Infallible Assumption Argument
Silencing contrary views assumes that one is never wrong (infallible), which obstructs the truth from coming to light.
Partial Truth Argument
More often, one does not have a monopoly on the whole truth, and by silencing contrary views, other important truths may be denied, leaving us with an incomplete picture of the truth.
Paternalism vs Harm Principle
Paternalism protects people from themselves as if their safety were more important than their liberty. By contrast, the Harm Principle holds that limiting liberty can only be justified to prevent harm to other people, not to prevent harm to self.
The harm principle does not bar all paternalism.
It permits paternalism over those who are not decisional-competent, such as young children, the intellectually disabled, and perhaps those whose ability to make decisions is compromised by ignorance, deception, duress, or clouded faculties.
In these cases, these individuals are not fully capable of exercising their rational faculties to make decisions for themselves and so there is justification to interfere with their liberty for their own good.
Harm vs Offence
Harm: a physical injury to your person.
Collateral harm: an obstacle to the fulfilment of your normal duties or interests, which disappears only when your injury disappears.
Offence: merely offered to someone, who must then decide whether to accept the insult or not.
When offence becomes harm: If you take offence on a daily basis, you may not be able to mobilize sufficient moral self-defence, and eventually the repeated offences can have a cumulative harmful effect.
We must be able to tolerate a certain amount of offensiveness in our daily lives, but the emotionally vulnerable need to be able to remove themselves from the offender or the offending stimulus if too frequent or intense, lest it becomes harmful.
