"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant."
That seems right. But what is "harm to others"? Does that include "moral harm", as in actions destructive of morals? What about economic harm as in activities that restrain trade? Or is it just physical harm? A simple passage with significant depth.
4 comments:
Its a vague term for sure but I think that at the very least tangible, objective harm is out. Thus "moral" harm wouldn't cut it.
Harm none and do what ye will.
Dear Morton,
I believe the whole thing is considerably more sticky than it first appears. I have always enjoyed Mill but I think, in the end, his view of power itself is far to one-dimensional. First of all, power is exercised over individuals through a very complex web of ideological social functioning. Mill failed to build on the philosophical changes that were rocking Europe in the fifty years or so before he did his work that began to recognize that power and ideology are much more complex than they had been previously portrayed. I think even before you get to the problem of 'harm to others' there are complexities and problems that could take entire books even to address let alone solve in any meaningful way. Because of his one-dimensional view of power (and for more on this see Stephen Lukes remarkable book on power) Mill is already in such a deep quagmire before he even gets to 'harm to others' that it seems that starting with 'harm to others' is putting the cart before the horse. (And on the standard of 'harm to others' it seems that even the collection of taxation is difficult to justify if we are satisfied with Mill's rather simplistic standards of discourse)
The other deliciously vague part of that maxim is the phrase "any member of a civilised community" - which allows a fair amount of latitude when dealing with the "uncivilized", whomever they are.
Post a Comment