An Evaluation of John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

            Mill, in his work ‘On Liberty’ attempts to find the right mix of state authority and individual freedom in light of his rejection of anarchism[1], and escape what Mill perceived as a ‘social tyranny’ (Himmelfarb, 1993). To do this, he created the Harm Principle (otherwise referred to as the ‘Liberty Principle’), which describes a situation in which the state holds minimal authority over the individual. Allowing the individual to hold sovereign over their own lives, thus to protect the minorities rights against a democratic majority vote. This view limits state intervention, and allows the freedom of speech preventing limited views being heard to influence, shape and mould public beliefs.

            However, before explaining Mill’s principle in depth, it is important to note and distinguish between positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom allows you to exercise control over your own life, most defenders of this position believe that freedom lies in self-realisation with the individual (or even the state) making their own decisions. On the other hand, negative freedom is a freedom in the absence of coercion. In other words, you are free if no one is preventing or encouraging you to act against your wishes. Many liberal political (negative) philosophers agree that governments are justified in restricting a person’s freedom if that person is a danger to others. But outside of this, individuals should be left alone from the state to do as they wish. (Warburton, 2004) This is the type of freedom that Mill in concerned with.

            Mill’s harm principle is based on negative freedom and claims that the sole end for those residing in a mature and civilised society is self-protection, whether as individuals or as a society on a whole. This means that power can only ever be exercised over an individual against his will, if that individual is harming (or threatening) others. For example, the state has the authority to hold a murderer captive, to protect others from the murderers evil intentions. However the murderers own physical or moral condition is not enough to warrant his capture, only the threat he poses is. He is unable from agreeing or disagreeing to arrest as in the opinions of others; his capture is wise. Although the individual is not compelled to do anything, he can be persuaded or entreated, so in order to deter him, his actions must be calculated to produce harm to others. Therefore, the only action that he is amenable to society for, is the action which concerns others wellbeing. According to Mill, the only ones who are exempt from the harm principle in civilised cultures are those who the law sees as being below the age of manhood or womanhood, as they do not have the appropriate level of maturity to warrant their moral faculty. This principle stems largely from a Utilitarian viewpoint (a theory Mill’s work is largely concerned with) and suggests that moral actions are justified according to the Principle of Utility. A principle which aims to maximise happiness/pleasure at all times. Thus, causing harm to others is a disregard for such a rule, and therefore, if you are guilty of such harm, you are liable to face government interference.

            Throughout Mill’s principle, he is explicit that the individual is sovereign over his own mind, body and affairs. This ultimately means that although an individual can be urged or commanded to do certain things, he is never compelled to do it. The only thing that can over-ride his sovereignty is if he poses a threat to others, and if this is the case, the state gains permission to hold him captive. Mill’s harm principle, is widely thought of as influential, and is evident in aspects of today’s society, for instance, prisons being used to contain dangerous people who pose as a threat to the safety of others. However, this theory raises the question of what ‘harm’ involves, and when is interference justified?

            In answering this, is it important to consider Mill’s view about the freedom of speech. He believes we have such freedom because we possess liberty of thought, and liberty of speech must therefore be ‘inseparable’ from this, as it is required for the sake of truth ‘for its emergence and continued vitality’ (in other words we require freedom of speech to challenge widely accepted views)^[2]. However, despite Mill’s argument for free speech and against censorship, he did agree that there is one situation in which censorship is justified. That is, when expressing an opinion that ultimately causes harm to another, Mill uses the example of corn dealers to illustrate this. The example follows that; consider that corn dealers starve the poor by charging to high a price for their corn. Mill supposed that it is acceptable to express anger at the dealer either verbally or in writing as this can only causes offence, not harm. What is not acceptable is to express anger by gathering an angry mob outside his house, as this could instigate violence. This suggests that according to Mill, there is only a minority of ways in which expressions of opinion can violate the harm principle, so there is little in the way of censorship or infringement on the individual’s freedom of speech. Therefore, our liberty of action, according to Mill, is only one less degree absolute than our liberty of thought and speech, as our actions are ‘subject to the qualification of harm to others.’ (Himmelfarb, 1993)

            This theory has several attractions, such as the theory is egalitarian; everyone is treated equally, with only one rule that can result in state interference. The principle also appeals to people’s natural desires to seek happiness and avoid unhappiness, whilst promoting an altruistic society. For example, preventing selfish behaviour, in that I should not follow through with an action, if that action were to affect others in a harmful manor.

            Moreover, the harm principle in reality poses several problems. For instance, take when applying the harm principle to aspects of society such as prostitution; it becomes unclear as to why it is permitted to exist under a liberal government. Lord Justice Devlin claims that if prostitution is not a concern of the law’s (as it does not cause harm) then what of the brothel-keeper? According to Devlin, the brothel-keeper is exploiting the prostitute and therefore, laws against such activity must be maintained. Devlin believes that we understand such matters by assuming that society holds certain moral principles, principles that are enforced through the criminal law. Such law is derived from customary morality; for example, public indecency can be seen as not necessarily a harmful act, but an offensive one. Such offences are seen as being against decency and good manners, and to do them, you will be offending society on a whole. Whilst Mill would deny such a claim that the law should uphold customary morality, he would feel uncomfortable answering Devlin’s examples. Begging the question of why a liberal would be concerned about their principles coming into conflict with customary morality, showing that a ‘one simple principle’ rule cannot truly reflect a complicated society. (Wolff, 2006)

            Moreover, another criticism that has been held against Mill is that, if as Mill states in his utilitarian writings, that the Principle of Utility can answer all moral questions, then why does he require another principle when considering state interference. Surely, a true Utilitarian would look to answering moral problems based on the good and bad actions they cause, and this would mean judging state intervention on the same grounds. So why is there a need for a Harm Principle? It seems paradoxical to propose a new Principle to which to judge maxims by, when such a Principle is not only different from the Principle of Utility, but would require that anyone who adopted it to ignore the implications of that Principle, unless their actions involved harming another person (Gray, 1996).

            In addition, problems arise with the theory when people are liable for punishment for an action that unintentionally causes harm to a third party. For example, consider a gambler who squanders his money away and is left with nothing to support his family. The gambler could potentially he held and punished, not for gambling but for being unable to support his family, and thus causing harm. This punishment doesn’t seem to sit right, as although he is harming his family financially, it is right to punish him for an addiction that he cannot control? Plus, in this situation, is the casino also liable for causing harm, as they are providing an outlet for such gambling? It seems that Mill’s principle is not as simple as it seems at first glance, providing uncertainty when it comes to deciphering as to what lengths ‘harm’ should be taken to.

            In conclusion, Mill’s harm principle, is a simple one rule theory that appears easy to adhere to at first glance, claiming the only situation in which the state is justified in interfering with the individual is when that individual is causing (or threatening to cause) harm to others. However, questions such as what constitutes as harm and what level of harm constitutes punishment arises, casting doubt over the practicality of such a principle, as well as questioning Mill’s commitment to his Utilitarian beliefs. Despite this however, it is claimed that is Mill’s work concerning liberalism can be found to be a piece that is ‘properly understood’ and in a format that can protect society from both ‘the horrors of absolute power and the excesses of absolute liberty’ (Himmelfarb, 1993), showing a balance between complete state control and absolute anarchism. A balance that seems desirable in a modern society.

Reference's

Gray, J (1996) Mill on liberty: a defence, 2nd edition. London: Routledge

Himmelfarb, G (1993) Liberty: “One Very Simple Principle”? [online]Vol.62, no.4, pp. 532-550. Available from: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=103&sid=1446254e-caba-46a0-a37f-5dc339ee6e99%40sessionmgr114 [Accessed on 12th March 2010] Warburton, N (2004) Philosophy: the basics, 4th edition. Oxon: Routledge

Wolff, J (2006) An introduction to political philosophy, revised edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press

[1] Mill rejected Anarchism, as he believed that without authority, (however minimal) some would choose to abuse their freedom and exploit others.

^[2] Such freedom to express one’s opinion is an example of self-determination and self-sovereignty.