NationStates Jolt Archive

I have been looking to find myself for some time now, realizing recently that I am an Athiest...after spending some time in buddhism. After this i found something lacking and well...I did not see this discussed here yet, but I was wondering if i was missing out on something illogical with Mill's Harm Principle

I have been looking to find myself for some time now, realizing recently that I am an Athiest...after spending some time in buddhism. After this i found something lacking and well...I did not see this discussed here yet, but I was wondering if i was missing out on something illogical with Miller's Harm Principle

I presume you mean John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle.

What's a HARM principle?

oops yes Mill's...sorry just finished with a paper on evolution and explaining how abiogenesis' differs :P

Pardon my ignorance, but what exactly is the Harm Principle?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

The harm principle is laid out in John Stuart Mill's arguably most famous work, On Liberty.

Mill defines the harm principle in chapter 1 as follows:

The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

beat ya :cool:

The big problem is essentially that it is possible to justify exactly the same set of actions under the harm principle as it is under most egoistic ethical codes. Any action done in fulfilment of personal interests can be denoted an act done in protection of your freedom or as a preventative measure against any degree of harm that you might possibly be subjected to.

From what I gather from the definition, it sounds like a good principle to follow if no one is selfish and everyone genuinly attempts to only use power over other people to prevent harm. This does sound a bit idealistic though. Am I correct in my gathering of this or am I totally misinterpreting the idea?

From what I have thought about it, doing harm to yourself is okay, but doing direct harm to others is a no no unless it is in self defense. As far as

"Any action done in fulfilment of personal interests can be denoted an act done in protection of your freedom or as a preventative measure against any degree of harm that you might possibly be subjected to."

goes, wouldn't this

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

take care of it?

As far as

"Any action done in fulfilment of personal interests can be denoted an act done in protection of your freedom or as a preventative measure against any degree of harm that you might possibly be subjected to."

goes, wouldn't this

"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant."

take care of it?
The weighting of the principle taken from that implication as you've interpreted it is that preventing harm rather than bringing overall good is the ethical obligation, which means that we are more ethically justified killing ourselves before we can do any damage than we are if we live on and drain the necessities of life from the finite pool available.

Since I like to consider the Kantian approach, think of what would happen if everyone did that; nobody would ever gain anything or do anything other than refuse to deprive anyone else of the rights, property and resources that they might need at some point.

Self protection must come into it, and it was indeed noted earlier in the statement. Thus, it doesn't actually change what is and is not ethically justifiable beyond a sort of deontological "undeniable liberty" notion, which in turn is prey to abuse from the egoist should they so desire.

I'm writing an essay about Peter Singer, who's an utilitarist who acknowledges animals as bearers of moral value on the basis of feeling pain. Since I'm dead tired I won't go into detail as of what that means.(.. sorry:rolleyes: ) I find this theory to be quite interesting, although it, as other utilitarian theories (and most etical theories in general), tend to have some flaws. It's more fitted for an utopic society, but that's really not an excuse for not trying to reach that utopia. Man's goal in life should be to reach an utopia, not sitting back and saying "meeh... better then nothing".

The essay have to be done by friday, and I'm just half-done.. :headbang: writing, and maybe especially writing philosophy-essays is not something I'm good at, but at least it's interesting. :)

EDIT: btw, the essay is in norwegian if anyone (for some strange reason) actually had the interest of reading it.. :P

I'm writing an essay about Peter Singer, who's an utilitarist who acknowledges animals as bearers of moral value on the basis of feeling pain. Since I'm dead tired I won't go into detail as of what that means.(.. sorry:rolleyes: ) I find this theory to be quite interesting, although it, as other utilitarian theories (and most etical theories in general), tend to have some flaws. It's more fitted for an utopic society, but that's really not an excuse for not trying to reach that utopia. Man's goal in life should be to reach an utopia, not sitting back and saying "meeh... better then nothing".

Why is utilitarianism "more fitted for a utopic society"? If anything, in a utopian society there would be no need for utilitarianism, because everyone's happiness would already be provided for.

Actually in an utopian society everyone would follow utilitarism.. and that's sort of what I meant. :) Utilitarism contradicts with rights, and therefore can only be exercised in an anarchy.. therefore an utopia where everyone follows the utilitaristic ethics. I personally think it's an impossibility, as do most other people, but at least one should allways strive to reach that goal.

I guess my point was that utilitarism couldn't be practiced by any society with laws. However, individuals in those societys could.


I hope I made some sense. :rolleyes:

Actually in an utopian society everyone would follow utilitarism.. and that's sort of what I meant. :) Utilitarism contradicts with rights, and therefore can only be exercised in an anarchy.. therefore an utopia where everyone follows the utilitaristic ethics. I personally think it's an impossibility, as do most other people, but at least one should allways strive to reach that goal.

I guess my point was that utilitarism couldn't be practiced by any society with laws. However, individuals in those societys could.


I hope I made some sense. :rolleyes:
Programmers would still hold the power in any case, I'm sure.

Do you use eclipse? How much experience do you have?

Actually in an utopian society everyone would follow utilitarism.. and that's sort of what I meant. :)

If everyone followed utilitarianism, we would have a utopian society within the technological capabilities of the time, at least in utilitarian terms. That goes without saying. But since that will never happen, the challenge is to create a society where the utilitarianism of the individual is superfluous - a society designed with utilitarianism in mind that pursues utilitarian objectives without needing a universally utilitarian population.

Utilitarism contradicts with rights,

Theoretically, but not necessarily practically. One could make the argument that while rights are not inherent or absolute, a society which respects people's rights increases happiness more than a society which ignores them.

and therefore can only be exercised in an anarchy.. therefore an utopia where everyone follows the utilitaristic ethics. I personally think it's an impossibility, as do most other people, but at least one should allways strive to reach that goal.

I guess my point was that utilitarism couldn't be practiced by any society with laws. However, individuals in those societys could.

So if I follow you:

1. Laws, rights, etc. are absolute.
2. Utilitarianism states that only one moral principle is absolute - the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
3. It thus follows that only a society without laws and rights can be fully utilitarian.

I suppose that's a fair enough point, but as I said, practicality would probably dictate that certain guidelines short of "greatest happiness for the greatest number" be respected. It's too easy to invent utilitarian justifications for practically anything, most of which would probably hold little water in truth.

I hope I made some sense. :rolleyes:

You did.

I'm writing an essay about Peter Singer, who's an utilitarist who acknowledges animals as bearers of moral value on the basis of feeling pain.

It's about time somebody said it. I'm not sure why people think animals are lesser creatures. Because they can't pick up a gun and shoot you with it in self-defense? Yet? (I think monkeys could do that actually.)