The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Harm to What Others? J. S. Mill’s Ambivalence Regarding Third-Party Harm

Harm to What Others? J. S. Mill’s Ambivalence Regarding Third-Party Harm
Harm to What Others? J. S. Mill’s Ambivalence Regarding Third-Party Harm
John Stuart Mill’s harm principle holds that an individual’s freedom can only be restricted to prevent harm to others. However, there is an important ambiguity between a strong version, which limits legitimate interference to self-defense and therefore prohibits society from protecting third parties (those who are not its members), and a narrow version, which grants any society universal jurisdiction to prevent non-consensual harms, no matter who is harmed. Mill sometimes appeals to the strong harm principle to preclude interference, but elsewhere endorses measures (including humanitarian foreign intervention and animal cruelty laws) to protect third parties, suggesting that he subscribes only to the weak harm principle. This ambiguity regarding who it is that society has standing to protect has important implications for the scope of individual freedom.
1538-4586
Saunders, Ben
aed7ba9f-f519-4bbf-a554-db25b684037d
Saunders, Ben
aed7ba9f-f519-4bbf-a554-db25b684037d

Saunders, Ben (2022) Harm to What Others? J. S. Mill’s Ambivalence Regarding Third-Party Harm. Journal of the History of Philosophy. (In Press)

Record type: Article

Abstract

John Stuart Mill’s harm principle holds that an individual’s freedom can only be restricted to prevent harm to others. However, there is an important ambiguity between a strong version, which limits legitimate interference to self-defense and therefore prohibits society from protecting third parties (those who are not its members), and a narrow version, which grants any society universal jurisdiction to prevent non-consensual harms, no matter who is harmed. Mill sometimes appeals to the strong harm principle to preclude interference, but elsewhere endorses measures (including humanitarian foreign intervention and animal cruelty laws) to protect third parties, suggesting that he subscribes only to the weak harm principle. This ambiguity regarding who it is that society has standing to protect has important implications for the scope of individual freedom.

Text
JHP for Pure - Accepted Manuscript
Download (91kB)

More information

Accepted/In Press date: 27 September 2022

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 471476
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/471476
ISSN: 1538-4586
PURE UUID: da1c14d9-b744-4741-a973-10d6489a1c30
ORCID for Ben Saunders: ORCID iD orcid.org/0000-0002-5147-6397

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 08 Nov 2022 19:08
Last modified: 17 Mar 2024 07:33

Export record

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×