Facebook Pixel Code
x
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.

Law & Morality

This is a preview of the 3-page document
Read full text

The principle recognizes two exceptions - children and people from backward classes. Sephen argues that such exceptions make Mill’s principle empty (Koons, 2003) but Higton (n. )clarifies that Mill refers to societies so backward that they are incapable of understanding the harm principle, lt alone be responsible enough to apply them. Sch classes lack the level of education and understanding which would enable them to benefit from the Harm principle. Te definition of the word ‘harm’ has been considered vague and lacking in preciseness. Kons says that Mill state to compel members of the society to aid others but it includes only direct harm and not the harm that I do others in harming myself.

Tying to draw a line of distinction between offensive act and harmful one can lead to a dilemma. Aperson running naked on the street can be interpreted as an offensive act by some but a harmful act towards children by others. Hmosexual act behind doors is more offensive behind doors than heterosexual act in public. Tus if an offensive act is done with full consciousness of the outcome, ten it complies with the norms of the harm principle but this has again been a cause of controversy as people contend that there should be no distinction between public and private actions.

A act in private can equally and adversely affect the society but Feinberg states that causing offense is less serious than harming someone so the penalty imposed for an offensive act should not be as heavy as that of harm (Mill, 2002). Tus, bcause of the various arguments and te between harm and offense remains under controversy.

Mll’s principle assumes that it is possible to undertake an action that will not affect anyone lese (Higton). Ohers argue that it is not possible to do anything in isolation and without affecting others. Te ultimate in self-harm is suicide but suicide is not reason enough for others to interfere because the Harm Principle states his own good, ether physical or moral, i not a sufficient warrant. Acording to this, i someone was bent on committing suicide, ohers would have right only to trying to persuade him not to do it.

Aguments abound whether I should be stopped from rock climbing because my demise in the process can cause harm to my relations left behind or even to the team members along with me during climbing. Soking in. ..

This is a preview of the 3-page document
Open full text
Close ✕
Tracy Smith Editor&Proofreader
Expert in: Social science, Media, Gender & Sexual Studies
Hire an Editor
Matt Hamilton Writer
Expert in: Social science, History, Law
Hire a Writer
preview essay on Law & Morality
WE CAN HELP TO FIND AN ESSAYDidn't find an essay?

Please type your essay title, choose your document type, enter your email and we send you essay samples

Contact Us