I have been recently re-introduced to John Stuart Mill and his ideas on Democracy and Liberty. In a system of Representative Democracy, which he favored, lurks the danger of the “tyranny of the majority”. Mill’s main way to avoid or at least alleviate this problem is by restricting the legitimate sphere of government activity. People have certain rights and liberties with which the government may not interfere. As he states in On Liberty :
“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. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
I really like this general principle, as it is simple, clear, and to the point. Of course, as with so many things, the devil is in the details but these differ from case to case. The main objections come from those who do not agree with the outcomes of application of the priciple to matters of customary morality. Examples include those regarding suicide, euthanasia, abortion, homosexuality, prostitution, etc. Although in these cases major progress in the application of the principle has been achieved in most Western countries, there seems to remain a general willingness to discriminate against groups of people ‘for their own good’.
Just recently, during the Covid crisis, many health officials were willing to put much more strict limitations on the freedom of movement of the elderly than on the rest of the population, not because they were more of a threat to others but because they were more vulnerable to the effects of the disease. Nobody asked the elderly if they were willing to accept the higher risk in return for a better quality of life. No, just lock all of them up! Mill would turn around in his grave!
Another interesting example is the crusade against smoking. Now, there is no doubt that smoking is addictive and that it is bad for you. It is generally accepted that it cuts your life span by about 10 years. On the other hand, many people do enjoy it and arguably it does not do harm to others, except through second hand smoke. Some argue that it does do harm to society because of increased medical cost but when I was a student, it was explained to me that the high excise taxes on tobacco (and alcohol) were justified because they offset the associated ‘social costs’.
In fact, recent studies have confirmed that smoking is bad for the individual but good for society. This is because smokers are just as productive as non-smokers, the difference in medical cost between smokers and non-smokers is more than offset by the excise taxes, and society saves a bundle because smokers receive about 10 fewer years of social security and pension payments. In view of this fact the crusade makes even less sense.
Back to the original argument: The harm to others is limited to the effects of second hand smoke. Therefore, it is legitimate to prohibit smoking indoors in restaurants, bars, and other public spaces. But what is the objection against smoking clubs or well-ventilated smoking rooms in bars or event centers? Entrance into such areas is totally voluntary and the risks are accepted by the users. The damage to third parties of second hand smoke from smoking outside is so minimal that it cannot be established. What is the use of dirty pictures on packages of cigarettes? And how does chewing tobacco or snuff or electric cigarettes harm others? The measures against these products can only be justified with: It is for their own good.
The prohibition of other drugs, some fairly harmless, like marihuana and cocaine, some harmful, like heroin, also can only be justified on the ‘for their own good’ principle. The use of these drugs certainly causes social costs but it is beyond a shadow of a doubt true that the social and financial costs of the ‘war on drugs’ by far surpass the cost of education and/or treatment of the (potential) users. An additional disadvantage of the prohibition of drugs (or anything else) is that enables the growth of criminal organizations, which are happy to profit from supplying the product at a hefty premium. (All tax-free because it is illegal, thus leaving the social costs to the taxpayer.) The prohibition of alcohol in the USA stood at the birth of the Mafia.
The author would love to get reactions, especially counter arguments.
It is not the doing of drugs, alcohol, smoking, suicide, sex, etc., that leads to happiness and well being but the fact that you can do it without fear that the State will come after you. Similar to the freedom of expression. Very few people express themselves in an objectionable manner but all enjoy the fact that they can without having to fear the State. Do you know anybody who is not taking drugs now, who would start if it becomes decriminalized?
Mill felt that the principle would lead to the greatest overall happiness, and I do agree. The main reason is that all the rules and regulations and prohibitions feel like bounds/cages and people don't like to be bound or caged. Most will not avail themselves of the freedoms but the fact that they are there are an important source of happiness.
I did not go, and do not want to go, into the abortion issue because it is complicated and requires a whole other article. Therefore, just a few things:
A regularly contracting muscle does not make a sentient being.
The example is valid in that it shows that 'potential' does not equal 'being' and does not confer rights granted to 'being'.
I was not aborted because I was not 'unwanted'. Unwanted children are not happy and are a scourge on their parents and society. If I had been aborted, who would have been hurt? Not me because I would not exist, not my potential mother because she would not have done it, my potential father would probably not have been in the picture and society could not care less.
I would like to be shown the proof and evidence that the liberty being advocated such as drugs, alchohol , smoking , suicide and unlimited sex - will ultimately lead to happiness and well-being. I believe that the liberty being advocated tends to appeal to persons who adopt nihilistic views or a life without value and meaning.
The calling for such unrestrained liberty contravenes in the end the principle of the utiliterian movement ( that Mills forms part of ) which is the greatest happiness for the greatest number - or the best consequences for all.
The analogy of the foetus as a potential human being with a father's son being a potential minister is totally distorted because a foetus remain a sentient being. Just watch the beating sound and image of an ultrasound scan on the womb of a pregnant woman. When advocating Mill's principle on abortion, ones has to respect and take into account the scientific beliefs held by many people that life commences from conception and that rights are not the exclusive domain of human persons only.
I cannot understand how people justify abortion on all grounds, when they fail to connect with the implication that they would not have been born and tasted life had their mother decided to abort them.
Let me start with your last point: Neither Mill nor I are anarchists. A State is essential for our well-being but its reach should be limited to the absolutely necessary.
Mills' principle of liberty does not condone acting without a sense of responsibility towards others, it only prohibits the State from interfering unless there is clear harm to others. Also one cannot make the definition of harm too wide or nothing would be allowed.
For instance in your first example, possibly causing anxiety to people would not be enough to justify action by the State. The social costs of using medical resources would but they should be compared, I think, to the costs of waging the 'war on drugs'. If that was done, which it is not, I am sure drugs would be legalized, but regulated (like tobacco) and taxed, with the money spent on education and treatment of (potential) users.
The same is true for your example of sexual freedom. We have it and there are social cost related to HIV and venereal diseases but the social costs of taking sexual freedom away would be many times higher than the costs of education and treatment.
Suicide can only not be justified if you make your definition of harm too wide.
Euthanasia on demand, which is basically the same as assisted suicide, is always justified and euthanasia of of people unable to express their wishes is mostly justified. (See my article on the subject.)
A foetus can be defined as a potential human being but that does not confer any rights. My son is a potential minister but that does not give him the right to a car with driver. Many people have many different ideas about if and when abortion should be allowed but the State has no interest in the matter and should not be involved.
That the management of homes for the elderly wanted to avoid being blamed for outbreaks is reasonable but you remember that the government wanted to lock everybody over 65 up in their own homes, which was a terrible act of discrimination.
While I do agree with Mill's principle on liberty , I do not think it is right to be interpreted as a justification for behaving in any way without a certain sense of responsibility to others. Even though I might have no intention to hurt or harm others with my free action.
Let me take an extreme example. Suppose during the past weeked I wanted to feel a bit high and indulged in some heroine overdose with my friends. I did not harm anyone with my actions, that's true. However the following Monday I ended up in hospital , causing anxieties to my loved ones. With my irresponsible actions I also diverted the efforts of the nurses and doctors toward me when they could have been focused on people who are suffering from other natural health conditions. In the process , I might have caused anxiety to my employer and my work colleagues as they have to share the workload without me.
The same reasoning applies to other indulgences. Even sexual freedom must always be balanced against the costs of HIV and sexual diseases. Suicide cannot be justifed neither under Mills concept as it causes harms to others in the sense of grief and pain caused to the closed loved ones.
Euthanasia cannot also be justified across all cases. One must differentiate between the amount of unbearable suffering and state of consciousness.
As regards abortion , such a practice is considered doing harm to others if you define the foetus as a potential human being that has equal rights to be protected as after the child is born.
With respect to the Covid-19 crisis, I really sympathised with the stifling lockdown imposed on the elderly living in residential homes. But there again , I could understand the management policy of total risk aversion , because if the virus spirals out of control it could possibly lead to many deaths among the elderly living in their homes.
I believe that in the end , liberty should always be balanced against responsibility and concern for others. That is why we need rules as otherwise unconstrained liberty could easily lead to destructive egoistical behavior. We must not forget Thomas Hobbes famous quote that life without government/rules becomes 'solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short'.