Ifagovernmentcanhinderorharmapersontopreventharmtoothers,whynotforthat Essay

Ifagovernmentcanhinderorharmapersontopreventharmtoothers,whynotforthat person'sowngoodCriticizeMill' - Essay Example However, the harm principle bars individuals from continually harming themselves and their property, since doing so may have severe implications on other societal members. The harm principle states that freedom of speech is essential because every individual possesses liberty of thought (Eisenach 117). However, he did agree that although freedom of speech is justified, it should not cause any harm to others. Mills argues that tyranny is a democracy form of government for uncivilized countries, on the best people on condition that they look into the interests of their subjects. He introduced the various tyrannies that included the majority and the societal tyrannies (Mill 156). The harm principle proves to be democratic, since it equates individuals, with the reigning regime ensuring the law is upheld. Mill’s principal on liberty also safeguards people from being downcast and keeps them content, thereby promoting a self-sacrificing society (Mill 156). The harm principle thus se ems to promote fairness among member of the society. It precludes selfish behaviors and makes an individual aware of the consequences if they were to hurt others. Mill’s principle on liberty appears to promote individual’s liberalization and a free society. However, critics argue that the principle may have some loopholes (Linklater 104). Mills principle fails to elaborate the meaning of harm, and only tries to quantify physical harm that can be effortlessly measured, thereby failing to address other forms of harm, including physical harm. The theory highlights the significance of safeguarding individuals from harm emanating from their fellow societal members’ acts. However, it fails to explicate on issues of self-harm, as well as individual harm from external aspects. Besides, the affected parties may be willing to be harmed for the own pleasure (Linklater 105). The principle only safeguards individuals from harm from others, thereby failing to address the fate of animals, plants and other natural resources that are of significant interest for the survival of humanity. The society may perceive various individual acts as amorous, as well as detrimental to its ultimate development. This renders the principle incompetent and it highlights its inability to govern a country alone. As such, the reigning regime ought to intervene and implement other laws that safeguard individual and societal rights, thereby promoting development. Philosophers conducted in-depth research, in their quest to refute Mill’s principle on liberty (Eisenach 117). Such include Durkheim, who stated that the self-freedom may not always be for the benefit of involved parties. He indicated that self-gratification did not always lead to contentment. Thorough research compelled Durkheim to assert that societies that upheld Mill’s principle faced the predicament of several individuals committing suicide. Instances where the harm principle may appear incomplete in clude drug abuse, abortion and gay marriages (Linklater 105). Various activists may apply the harm principle in promoting such incidences. These activities may pose adverse impacts in individuals. The role of the government is to protect individual rights, thereby promoting societal growth. Such incidences obligate the government to implement measures that discourage such acts. These activities may seem to be harmless to parties that are not actively involved in them. However, severe indirect