The justification of legal restrictions and/or criminalization (Millian arguments, harm principle, legal moralism etc) Flashcards
Q1: What is the Harm Principle according to John Stuart Mill?
A1: The Harm Principle states that the only legitimate reason for society to restrict an individual’s freedom is to prevent harm to others.
Q2: What does Mill mean by self-regarding conduct?
A2: Self-regarding conduct refers to actions that affect only the individual and do not harm others, such as personal choices or behaviors that only involve the individual or consenting adults.
Q4: According to Mill, when can the law intervene in an individual’s life?
A4: The law can intervene only when an individual’s actions cause harm to others, not when the conduct only affects the individual or those who voluntarily consent to be affected.
Q5: What is Mill’s stance on paternalism (government intervention for an individual’s own good)?
A5: Mill opposes paternalism, arguing that the government cannot interfere in an individual’s choices for their own good unless those choices harm others.
Q6: How does Mill define harm in the context of the Harm Principle?
A6: Mill defines harm as actions that violate a “specific duty to the public” or cause “perceptible hurt” to others. It refers to actions that affect others directly, not just personal decisions that do not harm anyone else.
Q7: What is legal moralism?
A7: Legal moralism is the belief that the state can criminalize behavior simply because it is immoral, regardless of whether it causes harm to others. Mill opposes this, arguing that the state should not impose the majority’s moral values.
Q8: What is Mill’s argument regarding positive acts that the state can compel individuals to perform?
A8: Mill acknowledges that the state can require individuals to perform positive acts (e.g., testifying in court, serving in defense of society) when such acts benefit others or society as a whole.
Q9: What does Mill argue about the role of utility in justifying legal restrictions?
A9: Mill argues that utility, understood as human flourishing and not mere pleasure, is the ultimate principle of justification. The state’s actions should aim to promote the greater good and the flourishing of individuals.
Q: What is negative liberty?
A: Negative liberty refers to freedom from external interference or obstacles, such as legal or physical constraints. It is the absence of restrictions on individual actions.
Q: What is positive liberty?
A: Positive liberty is the freedom to determine and control one’s own life and destiny, often involving self-mastery and the capacity to realize one’s potential.
Q: What is the main difference between negative and positive liberty?
A: Negative liberty focuses on the absence of interference (freedom from), while positive liberty focuses on the ability to achieve self-realization and control one’s life (freedom to).
Q: Why is negative liberty not sufficient according to Charles Taylor?
A: Taylor argues that negative liberty only ensures the absence of obstacles but does not guarantee the actual exercise of one’s potential or the opportunity to self-realize. Positive liberty is needed for true freedom.
