Is anyone else a fan of Mill's "harm principle" (actions which do not harm another person should not be prohibited)?
Or maybe others have different political philosophies?
Or maybe others have different political philosophies?
John Stuart Mill's "Harm Principle"
I'd also like to suggest that FriHost add a "Politics" forum. It seems conspicuously absent from the listings.
Hey,
I actually know very little about this person you speak of, but sounds kind of attractive... I'll look into it.
I guess, we should consider whether harming oneself should be a right to that person. And what about for a mentally retarded being.
Even the term harm can be very difficult to define, for every action is likely to cause a poss/neg reaction upon another entity, yet, can they all be controlled? ie. I have AIDS, I transmit it to you in a sexual act. What do we do about this?
I actually know very little about this person you speak of, but sounds kind of attractive... I'll look into it.
I guess, we should consider whether harming oneself should be a right to that person. And what about for a mentally retarded being.
Even the term harm can be very difficult to define, for every action is likely to cause a poss/neg reaction upon another entity, yet, can they all be controlled? ie. I have AIDS, I transmit it to you in a sexual act. What do we do about this?
I haven't actually come across John Stuart Mills putting it forwards, but still this is my basic personal philosophy. If it doesn't hurt anyone else, there's no reason the person shouldn't be able to decide freely. It only affects them, and they can harm themselves if they like...
Of course, as with everything, it's not as simple as it first seems.
Some things can really hurt others, without you really realising it. To take the most extreme example, murder clearly hurts others. Fatally. Suicide hurts only yourself.
Oh... and your parents, siblings, friends and other loved ones...
Of course, as with everything, it's not as simple as it first seems.
Some things can really hurt others, without you really realising it. To take the most extreme example, murder clearly hurts others. Fatally. Suicide hurts only yourself.
Oh... and your parents, siblings, friends and other loved ones...
I'm definitely a fan of Mill and the harm principal. Although it's not the only appropriate definition of freedom and liberty, it is a good starting point to consider what we should and should not be able to do.
As pointed out before, it can't offer an absolute answer because "harm" is a very subjective idea. Some actions do overt harm to others (theft, murder), but other actions do implicit forms of harm. But balancing this level of 'harm' against a person's right to act freely will put you in the right direction.
For one example, this sheds a lot of light on the drugs/tobacco/alcohol argument in the US. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs. Still, they are regulated because their unregulated use can lead to very severe harm done to others (i.e. drunk driving accidents and second hand smoke). People retain their right to freely use certain substances, but only to the extent that they do not harm others. The same argument should apply to other drugs (marijuana, etc). They should be regulated to prevent harm to others, but there is no reason to ban them outright.
Oh, and as for a politics forum, I don't think there's a need. The various topics fit pretty well into the philosophy forum and the world news/events forum. "Politics" and "political science" are very broad fields, and you can easily divide the various disciplines into basically political philosophy on the one hand and news/events on the other (foreign affairs, electoral politics, court/legal politics, etc).
- Walkere
As pointed out before, it can't offer an absolute answer because "harm" is a very subjective idea. Some actions do overt harm to others (theft, murder), but other actions do implicit forms of harm. But balancing this level of 'harm' against a person's right to act freely will put you in the right direction.
For one example, this sheds a lot of light on the drugs/tobacco/alcohol argument in the US. Alcohol and tobacco are legal drugs. Still, they are regulated because their unregulated use can lead to very severe harm done to others (i.e. drunk driving accidents and second hand smoke). People retain their right to freely use certain substances, but only to the extent that they do not harm others. The same argument should apply to other drugs (marijuana, etc). They should be regulated to prevent harm to others, but there is no reason to ban them outright.
Oh, and as for a politics forum, I don't think there's a need. The various topics fit pretty well into the philosophy forum and the world news/events forum. "Politics" and "political science" are very broad fields, and you can easily divide the various disciplines into basically political philosophy on the one hand and news/events on the other (foreign affairs, electoral politics, court/legal politics, etc).
- Walkere
 |