Shown in the upload

As such, society at large will either need to provide this gatekeeper on their own or allow an entity to complete such a task for them. As a function of analyzing and drawing inference upon Mill’s no harm principle of ethics and morality, this particular essay will focus upon the strength of the argument and some of the main problems and issues that present themselves if the individual chooses to approach morality and decisions making from such an angle. In such a manner, rather than trying to prove or disprove the efficacy of Mills approach as exemplified in the no harm theory, this particular analysis will neither seek to prove or disprove whether the theory is true. Instead, a level of inference will be gleaned with reference to whether or not the theory is capable of completely and utterly defining the means by which society interacts with itself and with the individual. and whether or not such an interaction is best described by Mills theory. Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, the reader should integrate with an understanding of the nature of the sanity argument, as Mill presents it. Ultimately, the argument is quite simple and straight forward. Providing that an individual is of age, i.e. an adult, and providing that they are of sane mind, they can and should be allowed to pursue whatever activities make them happy so long as they do not hurt anyone else. … Says Mill of such a precept: The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection (Mill 17). Taking the last concept as an example, the reader can and should understand that Mill relates the argument within the rubric of a situation in which the sane, adult individual, in a perfect world, would pursue only those courses of action that would not equate to any harm being done to fellow mankind. However, there is an issue that arises within such an understanding. The reader can and should integrate with an understanding of what defines harm. Whereas at cursory glance of the argument, it is clear that activities such as child molestation, drunk driving, or deriving pleasure from harming others in any form or variety would be fundamentally against the no harm principle put forward by Mill. Yet, there exists a more nuanced level of interpretation that can and should be integrated with. For instance, the reader can take an example of an individual that engages in recreational drug use within their home, alone, and not acting to corrupt or damage the health of any other members of society. According to Mill, such an action would likely necessarily represent an exemplification of the

Back To Top