The Harm principle

[brendan]

"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 civilized 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." - John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

[Collin Li]

I have argued with it as my support before and I strongly believe in the general idea of the harm principle, but "harm" can be hard to define. Socialist ideas can permeate and affect what "harm" means, ultimately restricting individual liberty. Being offensive may be considered harmful, and hence freedom of speech may be restricted.

I think liberty should be defined as the "absence of coercion"

[Mao]

John Stuart Mill is also an utilitarianist, where the benefit of offsetting the "greater" harm outweights the benefit of offsetting the "lesser" harm...

there is a flaw in the harm principle however, it is present in every utilitarian concept:

here's a not-so-well-thought-out example:
a plague (very contagious one) is spreading through the population, and it is deadly. There is however a vaccine, but a third of the population is also allergic to this vaccine. To prevent this plague from surviving, everyone must recieve the vaccine, the question lies, does the death to most of the population outweigh the innocent death of 1/3 of the population?? surely it does, but according to the harm principle, the death of the 1/3 is NOT for their protection, but for the good of the 2/3, but consequence tells us that this is necessary...

philosophy and ethics at its best...