This is very dangerous behavior for your single neighbor. Every Friday night from 6-8 pm he goes into his backyard, guzzles a bottle of Jack Daniels, strips buck naked, hops on his motorcycle, and zips around his backyard at high speed without a helmet. Only by peering out of the top of your attic window can you see what goes on in his backyard. You have a neighbor who has a large backyard with a 10-foot high, 4-foot thick brick wall. Now that we have examined the cases that Mill discussed, here are some thought cases for you to consider: Though this seems a rare case, it may have implications for questions of drug use and suicide. In this case Mill admits we ought prevent the sale even if it is a self-regarding action. As a result, if we allow someone to sell themselves into slavery we allow them to sacrifice all possibility of their future liberty. Mill holds that the whole point of the harm principle is to preserve a person's liberty. However, Mill says we can prevent this sale. Does the harm principle prevent us from stopping this action? Taking the harm principle as written, we might conclude that a rational adult has the right to sell themselves into slavery. Suppose a rational adult decides to sell themselves into slavery. We are therefore justified in stopping them to inform them of the danger that they do not know about. This is because liberty is about doing what you want to do and in this sort of case, we can assume that the person does not want to fall to their death. You see a jogger about to cross the bridge who is wearing headphones so they cannot hear your warning.Īre you justified in physically stopping the person from crossing the bridge in order to warn them? Mill claims that you are justified in stopping them and warning them of the dangerous bridge. For some reason there is no sign warning people of this (it was likely stolen as a prank). You are standing near a bridge that you know to be unsafe such that anyone crossing will likely fall to their death. Mill then would oppose restricting the sale of liquor on Sunday and higher taxes on alcohol, if those taxes are imposed in order to make it harder to obtain. Society is only justified in making a product more expensive or difficult to obtain if it were justified in banning the product all together. Are either of these laws acceptable according to the harm principle? Notice that these law do not prevent drinking they only make drinking more expensive and alcohol harder to obtain. Second, a law taxing liquor more than other goods in order to deter people from drinking because it is bad for them. The state decides to pass two new liquor laws: First, a law banning the sale of liquor on Sundays. This means that society cannot prevent drinking (because not every drinker is like Bob), but society can prevent or limit anyone like Bob from drinking. In other words, Mill thinks that an individual's protection from interference is forfeited when an otherwise self-regarding behavior (like drinking) continually leads to an other-regarding behavior (fighting when drunk). Mill would argue that it would then be appropriate for society to limit Bob's future drinking due to his past behavior. Is there any justification for preventing Bob from drinking? Everyone around Bob (including the police and bartenders) is aware of his propensity to become violent when he drinks. Though drinking itself is not a harm to others, Bob ends up getting in regular bar fights after a night of drinking. Do you agree?īob, like many college students, likes to go drinking. He finds it morally deficient, but legally permissible so long as it is based upon informed consent of rational adults. Mill defends polygamy between consenting adults. In this sense, we may interpret some of Mill's answers as backing away from the conclusions implied by the harm principle itself. When examining these cases, students should be aware that there may exist a distinction between what actions the harm principle as stated would indicate and what Mill himself says. Each case brings up a special challenge for the harm principle. Mill discusses several cases of applying the harm principle.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |