describe and critically assess John Stuart Mills harm principle

Client 's Name

Date

Professor 's Name

Course

Mill and Harm Thesis

In this essay I shall argue that John Stuart Mill 's Harm Principle is about justice and truth . John Stuart Mill 's argues in On Liberty that the use of the harm theory , or harm principle is that a state of government must ensure the quality of liberty just so long as the actions committed in the cause of liberty are not detrimental to the activists . That is to say that the government may interfere in to

prevent harm . The following will discuss Mill 's harm principle and its application to government in regards to restrictions and controls

Mill argues for the doctrine of liberty . Mill means to define the role of a person in society and as such the limited amount of coercion consistent in society that should affect that individual , No society in which these liberties are not , on the whole , respected , is free whatever may be its form of government and is completely free in which they do exist absolute and unqualified . Mill is stating that although these qualities are liberty come at a cost in no society would they be considered free because of the forms of government in which the world adheres

Mill argues that any opinion should be voiced despite its offensive sentiments and unpopularity . Mill did not right from a perspective in the harm theory to state that speech was not harmful , but despite this subsequent commentary , speech was an ideal freedom . Mill believed , and stated in the Harm Principle , that the harmfulness of an act is just cause to place social control on that act through legal means . These means included coercion

Mill advocates a style of liberalism that governs that individuals have basic rights (as is stated in On Liberty ) and the apex of these is free speech . The factors that involve Mill also include a free society in general and specific terms . Even in this free society there are certain actions that a person in a society may be involved with and then there are counter-actions of the government against those acts . This is interpreted to mean that such acts were harmful and the government was justifiable in their prevention or retardation of those acts being committed

Such acts by the government or society do not necessary lead to an infringement on that person 's liberty . There are however points to consider when examining the harms theory once such interpretation to the theory includes the ubiquitous nature of permissible interference by society or a governing body since any act committed may be a legitimate harmful act upon another person , and thus action in any definition could be interpreted in this sense . Thus , any action taken by the government with the umbrella statement of harm could be legitimate

Mill however was very stringent on his interpretation of Harm Theory and its application to law . He did not for one thing want a blanketed reason for any...