In Chapter 4 of On Liberty Mill entertains an objection to his Harm to Others Principle and rejection of paternalistic laws. According to the objection, the distinction between actions which are primarily self-regarding and actions that primarily affect the interests of others is untenable. After all, many actions that we think are only about ourselves can lead to the harm and suffering of others. A backcountry skier who dies in an avalanche causes her parents and girlfriend grief and suffering. A successful baker runs his competitors out of business causing them financial worries. What is Mill's response to this objection? Is it successful? If not, is there another way around the problem? Or does Mill's position rest on a mistake?
Wednesday, March 31, 2021
Hitch Your Wagon to a Star?
On March 26. 1997 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide in an attempt to catch a ride with a spaceship hiding in the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet. Had authorities known of these plans would they have been justified in arresting the cult members to prevent their deaths? After all, police officers forcibly prevent suicides all the time? What about a Jehovah Witness who refuses a blood transfusion for a life saving operation? Should the state force him or her to have the operation to save her or his life? What about a mountain climber who wants to ascend a dangerous Himalayan mountain peak in the middle of winter? Would authorities be justified in arresting her or him to prevent such a foolhardy ascent? Or do individuals have a right to engage in harmful behavior that is meaningful to them?
A Right to Hate?
A white supremacist wants to advocate his political views on a billboard in a majority African-American neighborhood. A neo-Nazi group wants to march in a city with a large number of Holocaust survivors. A conservative Christian passes out literature denouncing the legitimacy of gay marriage outside of a wedding chapel. Are these actions examples of hate speech? If so, should they be legally permitted according to Mill? Is he correct? What should the state do about speech that discriminates or preaches intolerance?