the harm principle and liberty: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » the harm principle and liberty » the harm principle and liberty

the harm principle and liberty
I show how the harm principlecan lead to possible violations of liberty

the harm principle and liberty

girard
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 38

Posted 10/10/06 - 07:59 PM: Subject: the harm principle and liberty	#1
According to the harm principle, outlined by Dworkin, if “A harms1 B” and B consented, then it is called ‘harmless.’ If “A harms2 B” and B’s rights are violated, then it is ‘harmful.’ I agree that harm2 is definitely where law should come into play, but I do not agree that the law should never be involved with harm1, explicitly. There are at least a couple instances where harm1 can be taken to the level where B is actually harmed. If B likes to be whipped during sexual intercourse and A does the whipping and nobody is hurt, then it is ‘harmless.’ If B is being hit so hard by A in which B suffers permanent or serious injuries(s), or is in fact killed by A, we see that there is harm being done. The latter shows that even though B’s rights and autonomy were not violated until severely and permanently injured and/or killed. There are two areas, or limits, to where a’ harm’ in harm1 violates human rights and/or human self autonomy and belong to a third category. These areas are a) Injury that is permanent and/or serious and b) Death. I call this category harm3. Harm3 is where A harms B, B consented, but B did not intend to or was not in the right mind to object to, the harm inflicted by A. These areas are the two limits that keep harm1 from being ‘harmless.’ One can find instances where harm3 might still be considered harm1, but these are not what I am referring to. In certain situations, the state has an interest to protect somebody like a suicidal person who is completely depressed. There is an interest to protect this person from harming themselves, in a situation where if that person was in the right state of mind they would not want to be in that situation. To clarify, take a person who is depressed to the point where they can barely get out of bed and function normally for example. It is obvious that he or she is not thinking clearly and rationally. If this person wants somebody to cut him or her, if somebody agrees and does cut him or her then it is deemed ‘harmless’ by the harm principle. If this same person cuts in such a way to satisfy either a), b) or both, then they have reached harm3. The state has an interest to protect somebody who is being hurt because they are weaker physically, mentally, politically, and socially. Harm3 is when A ‘harms” B, B consents, but A goes “too far” the criteria is as follows: 1) The person must be harmed to the point of a. Serious or permanent injury and/or b. Death 2) The person must either be i. In the wrong state of mind and/or ii. Unaware of the situation and consequences 3) The person who was ‘harming’ 1. Intended to do excessive harm or 2. Was neglectful (and thus at fault) Any one of these or a combination of these criterion means that harm has been done, and person B’s human rights and autonomy have been violated. Therefore, when an action falls into this category, it is up the government to enforce laws to prevent or to punish this type conduct in order to keep people from being harmed. No person should be harmed to the point that their other liberties are violated.

notquitethere
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2005
Location: Freefolk- England
Total Topics: 38
Total Posts: 949

Posted 10/10/06 - 11:40 PM:	#2
I find a slight contradiction here with regard to suicide. It is asserted here that the state should get involved when the individual is not in the right state of mind. Surely, if this is consistant liberal theory then it is up to the individual as to what is or is not the right state of mind for themselves.
"Do not play tennis unless you can prance about daintily on the court"- Nina Farewell [1953] www.danglercomic.com -Doesn't everyone have a webcomic nowadays?

Dogsi
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 25, 2005
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 642

Posted 10/11/06 - 12:24 AM:	#3
"I find a slight contradiction here with regard to suicide. It is asserted here that the state should get involved when the individual is not in the right state of mind. Surely, if this is consistant liberal theory then it is up to the individual as to what is or is not the right state of mind for themselves. " There are societies where suicide is considered a valid option for certain circumstances.

girard
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 25, 2006
Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 38

Posted 10/11/06 - 12:36 PM:	#4
Yes, I know what you mean. This theory adds on to the liberal theory of harm principle by Mills. I am tweaking it to fit what logically seems appropriate from the premise. Mills argues harm to oneself is not an issue for law or government, but I argue that in some cases it does. I put a modern liberalist twist to it, and by this I mean to say is that there are some instances where suicide should be prevented, not because it is immoral, but because the person his harming him or herself in the WRONG state of mind. The person is not 'free' to make this choice, but rather his or her mentality is clouded. Furthermore, this might come from the fact they are economically and/or socially 'unequal.' I would also like to note that even though I'm tweaking Mill's take on the harm principle with I said was modern liberalism, I did in fact try to create my own theory. It just so happens that it is not original at all.

litkey
Kant's retarded son

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Location: Glasgow
Total Topics: 55
Total Posts: 887

Posted 10/13/06 - 11:58 AM:	#5
But you left out HARM4. This is when A whips B and B consents but B is killed from the Whipping- A got too excited let's say. But there was C, this was the policeman on the scene. He was harmed by what he saw. There is always Mr C. ;-)
That's what tyrants get! - John Wilkes Booth “This is an impressive crowd: the Have's and Have-more's. Some people call you the elites. I call you my base.” -Bush Something cannot come from nothing.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.