Philosophy Arguments on Harm

Name:

Course Name:

Course Instructor:

Date of Submission:

To some extent I agree that people should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else. According to Mill’s explanation of the harm principle, he says that the only way law and moral condemnation should be used to change someone’s behavior is if it causes harm to others. The principle does not apply to a child until they are of age and it also does not apply to backward societies. Children and people from a backward society are not completely developed to a point that they can choose what is good for them. (Lacewing 2)

The harm principle comes from another called the principle of utility by Bentham. He explained that one can determine whether an action is good or bad by measuring the expected consequences. If the calculation shows that happiness outweighs unhappiness then the action is good and if not the action is bad and should not be performed. (Samaka 2)

There are reasonable objections to the harm principle that also make me not agree with it entirely. The condition of prohibiting an action only if it harms others is not good enough. There are actions that cause harm to others but should not be prohibited nevertheless. For example, economic completion may lead to other people losing their money which is harm to them but not a good enough reason to prevent this action. Also when basing this principle on the rules of social morality, there are actions that do not cause harm to others but are considered immoral. An act like having consensual sex outside marriage may not cause harm to the person doing it but it is considered immoral and should be prohibited. (Lacewing 2)

The harm principle does not clearly outline what harm is but it does explain that an action should be prevented if it injures the