Application 1: Apply the ‘harm principle’ (you can say anything except what harms others) to the set of norms advocating the use of ‘recreational drugs’.
Mill would not believe in legislation prohibiting recreational drugs, but even hard drugs. His argument is that a person has a right to do whatever they want as long as it does not cause measurable harm to others. Thus a person simply doing drugs should not be prohibited by law. Even is the person becomes a burden to those around them, Mill argues that this does not count as measurable damage. However, actions that risk directly harming others, such as driving under the influence, should be outlawed according to Mill.
Mill would likely advocate legalizing and taxing drugs. By the same logic that he uses to advocate taxation of alcohol, drugs are a commodity that consumers can do without, and thus the government is justified in taxing them to support itself.
However, Mill does believe that we should warn others of the danger if they are harming (or about to harm) themselves, and should even try to persuade them to change their course of action as long as we do not use force. Thus Mill would probably disapprove of the culture among some young people that accepts and even encourages recreational drug use. Mill would likely encourage education about the harmful effects of drugs and would want people to try to talk their friends out of using drugs, in order for people to make wiser decisions without their liberty being infringed upon.
I like to consider Mill's 'Harm Principle' as an open-ended thought with room for interpretation. Although Mill states, "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," every action is followed by a reaction by someone somewhere in the world. There is a connection in time where one's individual actions, superficially harmless, may indirectly lead to true harm. Drug abuse by a single individual could lead to financial instability, emotional or physical violence to friends and family, relationship and marital issues, health concerns, etc. One's personal use of alcohol or marijuana may not directly lead to physical injury of other human beings, but it could in fact be the catalyst to numerous other forms of harm. This is summarized by Mill's social authority principle which takes into account those who the user is responsible and held accountable for.
ReplyDeleteI do, however, agree with Allison's interpretation of Mill's balanced mindset. His advocation of drug taxation and view of drugs as a "commodity that consumers can do without" still allows people to have a freedom but with limitation. One's right to drug use may exist in the modern day, however, it is the duty of the people to continue to counteract drug addiction and similar externalities and provide education about the effects of drugs.
I agree with Allison. Mill argues that social/political power should be exerted over an individual only when that individual poses a harm to others. Over his own physical/moral wellbeing, the individual is sovereign. As such, Mill would likely take a more libertarian stance on drugs, advocating for their legalization. However, he would likely also advocate laws preserving public safety as related to drug use (DUI).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Shah on approaching the harm principle as "an open-ended thought with room for interpretation" and that one action always have consequences (good or bad) for someone somewhere. I also agree that Mill would advocate for using drugs. But personally, I think it is important to note the effects one's use does have, the potential to be especially hazardous to the people around the user. The first thing that comes to mind (which is a very specific case) is the thought of how drug use would affect the dynamic in a family. Therefore, I am inclined to think that Mill's interpretation would be a bit too open-ended.
ReplyDelete