![]() ![]() Mill writes that the object of his essay is to assert ‘one very simple principle’: “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” Given this so-called harm principle, we have grounds to suppose that Mill would have been against legal regulation of the aforementioned acts since, at first glance, they do not appear to be harmful. What, if anything, can Mill’s On Libertyteach us about such cases? Indeed, what can such cases teach us about On Liberty? ![]() Drunk teenagers fooling around in a church graveyard a couple snogging on the pavement a boy on a crowded bus playing gangster rap from his mobile phone two siblings hurling obscenities at each other at a supermarket checkout someone with very smelly armpits travelling on a rush hour tube a group of builders wolf-whistling at passing women on the street a mother breast-feeding her baby at a restaurant table a rambler walking through the countryside stark naked a married couple having sex in a public park in broad daylight a man entering a community library wearing a luminous orange T-shirt that reads ‘FUCK UK’ – these are trivial annoyances to some people but to others they are extremely offensive acts which ought to be legally prohibited. There is a great deal to be said on both scores, but in this article I wish to focus on the following problem. ![]() Is On Liberty still relevant today? The answer to this question must depend not merely on what one understands to be the pressing social and political issues of our age, but also on what one takes to be the central lessons of that essay. Mill & Violations of Good Manners Alexander Brown explores an apparent inconsistency within Mill’s system of ideas. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |