For Mill, is all speech ethical so long as it doesnt conflict with the harm principle?

How does Mill argue for the harm principle?

Mill wrote what is known as the ‘harm principle’ as an expression of the idea that the right to self-determination is not unlimited. An action which results in doing harm to another is not only wrong, but wrong enough that the state can intervene to prevent that harm from occurring.

What is the ethical theory of Mill?

The ethical theory of John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) is most extensively articulated in his classical text Utilitarianism (1861). Its goal is to justify the utilitarian principle as the foundation of morals. This principle says actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote overall human happiness.

Can Mill’s harm principle be justified?

As a form of social coercion, however, it is justified only to counter a substantial risk of harm to nonconsenting others. Because sometimes social coercion is justified though no rights are violated, there must be harm on Mill’s view even when there is no harm on Feinberg’s.

How does the harm principle inform Mill’s approach to freedom of speech?

2.1 John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle

Mill claims that the fullest liberty of expression is required to push our arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment. Such liberty of expression is necessary, he suggests, for the dignity of persons.

What is wrong with the harm principle?

In 1999 the legal scholar Bernard Harcourt argued that the harm principle is faulty because it actually contains no way to adjudicate between competing claims of harm. That would require an accepted and fundamental definition of harm, which doesn’t exist.

What does Mill mean when he claims that motives have nothing to do with the morality of an action?

(cf Railton, 1982 for good discussion.) Motives as criterion for rightness/wrongness: Acc to Mill (and utilitarians in general) the agent’s motives are irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of his actions. Thus, ‘the motive has nothing to do with the morality of the action, though much with the worth of the agent.

What is Mill’s definition of harm?

Harm is something that would injure the rights of someone else or set back important interests that benefit others. An example of harm would be not paying taxes because cities rely on the money to take care of its citizens. An offense, according to Mill, is something which we would say ‘hurt our feelings.

How does Mill argue for his principle of liberty?

Mill’s liberty principle is the idea that people should be free to do whatever they want, without any intervention from state or individuals, unless their actions harm somebody other than themselves. He argued that if each person was free to make his or her own choices it would maximise happiness in society.

Do whatever you want as long as you don’t hurt anyone philosophy?

The idea is that one can do what one wants if it doesn’t hurt anyone, unless the greatest good for the greatest number of people is not obtained. If the greatest good for the greatest number of people is not attained, then we’ve done something wrong the utilitarian view.

Is utilitarianism a philosophy?

Understanding Utilitarianism

Utilitarianism is a tradition of ethical philosophy that is associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, two late 18th- and 19th-century British philosophers, economists, and political thinkers.

Is utilitarianism a good ethical theory?

Utilitarianism is one of the best known and most influential moral theories. Like other forms of consequentialism, its core idea is that whether actions are morally right or wrong depends on their effects. More specifically, the only effects of actions that are relevant are the good and bad results that they produce.

What does utilitarianism mean in ethics?

Utilitarianism is an effort to provide an answer to the practical question “What ought a person to do?” The answer is that a person ought to act so as to maximize happiness or pleasure and to minimize unhappiness or pain.

What is the difference between Bentham and Mill’s version of utilitarianism?

What are the main differences between Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism and which theory is better? Both thought that the moral value of an act was determined by the pleasure it produced. Bentham considered only quantity of pleasure, but Mill considered both quantity and quality of pleasure.

What makes Mill’s version different from Bentham?

The main differences between Bentham theory and Mill theory are: Bentham advocated that the pleasures and the pains differ in quantity and not in quality. He said that pains and pleasures can be computed mathematically. But Mill said that pain and pleasure can’t be measured arithmetically they differ in quality only.

What is Mill’s view on utilitarianism?

Mill defines utilitarianism as a theory based on the principle that “actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.” Mill defines happiness as pleasure and the absence of pain.

Which of the following best characterizes the difference between Bentham and Mill with respect to their views on individual natural rights?

Which of the following best characterizes the difference between Bentham and Mill with respect to their views on individual natural rights? Bentham thinks that there are no natural rights, whereas Mill thinks that utilitarian moral theory supports the idea that we should recognize individual rights.

What is the main difference between the ways that Mill and Bentham conceive of happiness?

Bentham thinks that happiness varies only in quantity—different actions produce different amount of happiness. To judge the intensity, duration or fecundity of happiness is to calculate its quantity. Mill contends that happiness can vary in quantity and quality.