- Mill’s aim is to establish what rights people should have by determining when
it is legitimate to interfere with their actions – the harm principle amounts to
this: only non-consensualharm to others is a ground for limiting a person’s
liberty. - Mill rejects paternalism – people should not be protected against themselves (note
the last sentence of the quotation). - A standard criticism of the harm principle is that all actions affect other people
and there are very few purely ‘self-regarding actions’ – even knowing that things
are going on of which you disapprove could count as ‘harmful’. To counter this
objection Mill must clarify what is meant by harm, and he does so by arguing
that it is harm to a person’s fundamental interests. - To say that only non-consensual harm to others is a ground for limiting a person’s
freedom does not entail saying that every non-consensual harm should be
outlawed. The person you kill in self-defence is certainly harmed and has not
consented, but you are justified in taking his life. - The harm principle does not apply to children – nor to ‘uncivilised peoples’ –
clearly, we do need an account of children’s rights, but it may require a much
more complex theory.
At the base of the harm principle is a certain conception of what it means to live
a properly human life, as distinct from a merely animal existence. To be human is
to enjoy a sphere in which one is able to think, express ideas and lead a lifestyle
of one’s own choosing.
Freedom of thought and expression
Even if a person finds himself alone in expressing an opinion he should, according
to Mill, be free to express it. There are three heads to Mill’s argument. First, if the
opinion is true then by suppressing it humanity is deprived of the truth and will
not progress. Second, if the opinion is false then humanity again loses, because if
the opinion is false it will be shown to be so, but its expression is useful, for it
forces us to restate the reasons for our beliefs. A competition of ideas is healthy
(1991: 21). Third, the truth is often ‘eclectic’ (1991: 52). This last argument should
not be misunderstood: it does not mean the truth is subjective, but rather that an
opinion is complex. It is made up of a number of different claims, some of which
might turn out to be true, but others false. The task is to work out which are true
and which are false.
People who seek to suppress an opinion assume their own beliefs are infallible;
they confuse theircertainty with absolutecertainty. Mill accepts that people must
make decisions and act on them, and those decisions are based on beliefs. It would,
for example, be irrational for you to jump off the edge of a cliff if that action were
motivated by a belief that you could fly unaided; a rational person is guided by a
belief in the laws of gravity. However, Mill distinguishes holding a belief to be
certain, and not permitting others to refute it – people should be free to question
the law of gravity, and this is consistent with the rest of us acting as if the law were
true.
Mill’s defence of freedom of expression is paradoxical. While it is a good thing
for people to express different and conflicting opinions, the basic justification is that40 Part 1 Classical ideas