![]() Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. This is the case in all areas of society, not just abortion, and it holds true for men and women alike.Įspecially given the great damage that abortion does to women (let alone the unborn life), society has both a personal and public obligation to discourage abortion in whatever ways it can. What those who hold these signs don’t seem to be aware of is that the pro-life movement is not out to take away any of their rights, nor deprive them of any of their freedoms.Īll individuals, both men and women, have every right to exercise their freedom, but society always has an obligation to intervene when harm is being brought to another life. We often hear the phrases “My Body, My Choice” and “Pro-Choice: the radical idea that women have control of their bodies” uttered by those who are in favor of abortion. Īlso, Mill argued that because no one lives in isolation, even harm that is thought to be done exclusively to oneself often results in harm to others as well – immediate family members perhaps, but also the community. Mill might view the abortion debate if he were alive today.įirst, it should be noted that one of his key ideas is the harm principle, which holds that individuals may act as they wish, as long as these actions do not harm others. In light of this, it may be useful to take a closer look at these arguments to see how J.S. Mill published a book entitled On Liberty, in which he advocated several key principles for society. 132-140.Arguably one of the greatest minds in philosophy, J.S. Williams, G.L., Mill's Principle of Liberty, Political Studies XXIV(2) (1976), pp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. Griffiths (ed.), Of Liberty, supplement to Philosophy. Thomas, D.A.L., Rights, Consequences, and Mill on Liberty, in A.P. Temkin, L.S., A Continuum Argument for Intransitivity, Philosophy and Public Affairs 25(3) (1996), pp. Sumner, L.W., Welfare, Happiness and Ethics. London: Routledge, 1991 (originally published in Political Studies, VII, 1960). Rees, J.C., A Re-Reading of Mill on Liberty, in J. Warnock (ed.), Utilitarianism and On Liberty. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1997 (originally published in Canadian Journal of Philosophy, Supplementary Volume V, 1979). Lyons, D., Liberty and Harm to Others, in G. Mill On Liberty, Political Studies XXII(4) (1974), pp. Holtug, N., On the Value of Coming into Existence, The Journal of Ethics 5(4) (2001), pp. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984.įeinberg, J., Offense to Others. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Ĭrisp, R., Mill on Utilitarianism. 394-399.Ĭharlesworth, M., Bioethics in a Liberal Society. īrown, D.G., Mill on Harm to Others' Interests, Political Studies XXVI(3) (1978), pp. 292-304.īerlin, I., John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life, in J. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2001.īayles, M.D., Harm to the Unconceived, Philosophy and Public Affairs 5(3) (1975-76), pp. ![]() An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Finally, in light of my negative appraisal, I briefly discuss why this principle has seemed so appealing to liberals.īarry, B., Culture and Equality. ![]() I also consider the prospect of including the Harm Principle in a decision-procedure rather than in a criterion of rightness. Again, no plausible version of the principle turns up. I consider various ways this may be done as well as possible rationales for the resulting versions of the Harm Principle. Instead, the concept of harm may be moralized. Whether we focus on welfare, quantities of welfare or qualities of welfare, we do not arrive at a plausible version of this principle. I consider various possible conceptions and argue that none gives rise to a plausible version of the Harm Principle. Therefore, a more subtle concept of harm is needed. ![]() Thus, if any sort of negative effect on a person may count as a harm, the Harm Principle will fail to sufficiently protect individual liberty. Clearly, this principle depends crucially on what we understand by ‘harm’. According to the Harm Principle, roughly, the state may coerce a person only if it can thereby prevent harm to others.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |