In a recent piece for the Daily Sceptic, David Martin Jones and Michael Rainsborough object to the attempt by medical ethicist John Harris in the Telegraph to co-opt the famed liberal-utilitarian philosopher J.S. Mill to the side of mandatory vaccination. Mill was a keen defender of individual freedom, but allowed that actions which affect others may be regulated by Government. Harris argues that for a person to refuse vaccination constitutes, using Mill’s words, “a positive instigation to some mischievous act”, and thus is not a protected form of personal discretion.
Jones and Rainsborough object that this misrepresents Mill, who rather held that conduct may be prohibited under his famous ‘harm principle’ only if it is “calculated to produce evil to someone else”. This formulation of Mill’s principle suggests it is only intentional (“calculated”) harm to others that Mill thinks may be prohibited, while unintentional harm escapes the scope of coercive regulation.
But does Mill really hold that it is only intentional harm to others that may be coercively prohibited? It’s hard to square that with the following statement of his principle, found in the same essay (emphasis mine):
For such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.
Plainly, actions that are “prejudicial to the interests of others” are not only intentional ones, as many unintentional actions can be prejudicial to others’ interests. Furthermore, Mill here is saying that it is up to “society” to determine whether, given such prejudicial action, some measure or other is “requisite for its protection”. It is therefore hard to see how an appeal to an action being unintentional can save it from coming under the scope of “harm” for Mill and thus subject to the control of “society”.
Besides which, Jones and Rainsborough themselves allow that Mill, as a “utilitarian and a moral consequentialist” would “quite possibly”, in the modern context given the existence of socialised healthcare, have argued that “if a responsible adult refused the vaccination the NHS offered to prevent an infectious disease, the individual would either forego any right to NHS treatment or be required to pay the cost of his care”.
Alternatively, Mill may well have just argued that “society” was entitled to determine that refusing vaccination in a context of socialised healthcare is “prejudicial to the interests of others” and so, under his principle, accountable and punishable. But even if Mill would personally have declined to make such an argument, there is nothing to stop others doing so on the basis of how he defined the principle, as John Harris has done.
The underlying problem here is with the harm principle itself. The notion that merely protecting ‘purely self-regarding’ action from social regulation and interference will guarantee individual freedom is, in the end, fundamentally mistaken. Such a category is far too narrow – or at least can be construed as far too narrow – to allow any real scope for freedom once “society” is given the right to determine what is “prejudicial to the interests of others” and thus subject to “punishments” according to its discretion.
What is needed, rather, is an underlying commitment to personal freedom notwithstanding that such freedom will often impinge on others’ interests in certain ways.
For example, many people may regard it as “prejudicial to their interests” to be offended, criticised or disliked. Or to be rejected, failed or disadvantaged by being bettered by others. Or (in a Marxist vein) to be subject to unfavourable power relations arising from inequalities in wealth or status. Or (to take the topic of the present article) to be infected with contagious disease or have public services burdened due to other people’s choices. Or to live in a society where people have easy access to ‘misinformation’. Or to experience a damaged natural environment. Indeed, it’s evident that all the currently most contested political issues relate to how our choices affect other people. And while Mill himself distinguished between “harm” and “offence” and argued that causing offence should not be prohibited, others may not agree with the niceties of this distinction, and anyway many of the current contested topics would not come under Mill’s definition of “offence”. Thus a principle that confines itself to defending purely self-regarding action is of almost zero assistance in these debates and a poor guarantor of freedom.
This is why we need a principle that defends freedom, not only when actions don’t affect others, but including and even especially when they do. We need a commitment to freedom that permeates all the necessary considerations of how to manage the fact that the interests of others are frequently engaged by the ordinary exercise of people’s freedom.
Consider vaccination. Let us grant that the Covid vaccines offer some protection against serious disease, at least for a while. In the context of socialised healthcare it is then useless to deny that something that significantly improves health outcomes may legitimately be construed as engaging the interests of others, and so is not purely self-regarding. This means the harm principle is of no help to us, as anything not purely self-regarding is handed over by it wholesale to “society” to determine the “punishments” required to address the prejudicing of the “interests of others”.
What we need instead is a deeper commitment to freedom that respects the individual’s autonomy over his or her body, notwithstanding that it may in certain ways be “prejudicial to the interests of others”.
When political declarations historically have set out rights to freedom of speech and assembly, to property, to self-government and so on, they have done so notwithstanding that the advancement of these rights will in many ways be “prejudicial to the interests of others”. Our cherished freedoms of speech, assembly, property and so on are not contingent on the idea that the “interests of others” will never be prejudiced by upholding them, but rely rather on the idea that respecting individual freedom is more important than never offending, upsetting, burdening or disadvantaging others in some way. Of course, the impacts of freedom on others need to be monitored and managed politically and legally. But for liberty to thrive such an enterprise needs to be done in a way which, at its core, treasures freedom above the feelings of others, and isn’t afraid to prefer individual liberty to the protection of “interests”.
In other words, we don’t need a harm principle; we need a freedom principle.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
It has long been clear that the Scottish Nasty Party are 24-carat authoritarians.
La Turdgeon is of course the worst, with Humza ‘Stasi’ Yousaf a close second. Not a surprise to see Swinney piling in either.
These awful people have been absolutely loving the extra powers over day-to-day life that they’ve awarded themselves.
They are some seriously sick puppies and it’s high time Scotland woke up and kicked them into the next solar system.
He argued the consultation was “an opportunity to maintain changes that have been welcomed by people who now don’t want to lose transformations that have been innovative” during the pandemic.
Sick, authoritarian gobbledygook from the Sad, Numptie Pondlife.
A people, a nation I was always proud to consider an integral part of the United Kingdom has been reduced to near vassal status by a midget sized and midget brained fugly woman and her equally fugly hubby.
For the Sturge and the rest of the cabal the only humane solution – for the people of Scotland at least is a Ceaucescau moment.
Sadly, around 45% think Turdgeon and her fellow authoritarians can do no wrong, despite quite staggeringly gargantuan amounts of evidence indicating the exact opposite – the appalling SNP poison and ruin everything they touch.
Everything.
People reliant on the government for their income. A totally different mindset to me or you and Sturgeon is good for those people, with he state expansion project for Scotland.
They rely on the English taxpayer for their incomes.
Time for another ‘independence’ referendum methinks- but this time including us poor slobs south of the border. That would be interesting.
What makes you think England is any different?
Good point. As yet the Westminster government hasn’t explicitly introduced legislation to embed Chinese authoritarianism permanently, and masks and lockdowns are less intrusive, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. Lets have a look come Christmas and the seasonal rise in infection.
The will to totalitarian power is certainly there. Johnson and Co. are no better in essence than Wee Krankie’s gang, including Devious Screamer. Parliament is a dead duck, overwhelmed by tenth rate chancers. Two months on, I’ve just received a reply from my MP over the last Commons vote :
“I believe that extending restrictions for another month was the right thing to do given the context of new variants and rising rates of infection.
Although I believe that the government has been reckless in its decision-making around this, I am glad that the success of the vaccine program has meant we have been able to end almost all restrictions over the last month.”
Moron.
These are not democrats of any description – even given the broad definition of that term.
Bozo follows the Poison Dwarf in most things, I suspect both he and Smarmer are thinking “what a good idea!”
“….the only humane solution – for the people of Scotland at least is a Ceaucescau moment”.
Certainly not just for Scotland.
Main difference : the UK populace would have cheered Ceaucescau.
Here in Canada, Trudeau just called a snap election for September 20th. He had 2 years left in his term, however, with a minority government he was slightly handcuffed for policy decisions. His prelude to calling an election – he announced mandatory vaccines for all federal public servants and anyone travelling by plane, train or bus. He was no doubt feeling the political winds that most Canadians want mandatory vaccines, it seems, so he is trying to cash this in for a majority government. He’s already increased the deficit from about $60 billion per year to almost $400 billion per year and the total Canadian debt stands close to $1.2 trillion!
Of course, with the clear obfuscation over vaccine mandates, nobody seems to care about the deficit nor debt so he is likely to get a majority and then we are all in for CCP government Canadian style unfortunately.
Bloody hell.
I suspect, and I have believed this for some time, Bozo will pull the same stunt.
He can try it.
It’s time to leave Canada!
Anyone familiar with the plot of the Star Wars prequels will know that this is how Emperor Palpatine gets to power. After getting himself put in charge a manufactured situation is used to grant him ’emergency powers’ which are never cancelled. Obviously a role model for our leader.
So they are attempting to redefine both “emergency” and “democracy”. Will they get away with it, or will we invent other new words that tell the truth? Open to offers, maybe.
It seems Scotland needs liberating. As does Australia, New Zealand, Canada… A very similar mind-set prevalent in all the so-called leaders of these countries. Johnson just does as he is told. So, we have our very own Stalin/Hitler mini-me on our shores. What to be done about it though? Is this what the Scottish people really want?
If people want the moronic Trudeau, why wouldn’t others want the Turdgeon or the fat tosser who inhabits No 10? In fact, it’s hard to think of a western country that doesn’t have a criminal nominally in charge.
Public Servants need to be reminded they are public servants and not our Masters. I don’t care to what lengths we need to go to make them understand that their roles are temporary and we are governed only by our Consent.
Sadly this has not been the case for decades. I said from the outset of this insanity that we would not get our freedoms back. I was not trying to be clever, simply observing that power once taken is rarely, if ever, relinquished. When has any new rule ever been reversed? I only hope I was wrong about it happening in England.
Actually, they are governing ‘by consent’. That’s the problem.
Short, simple and clear.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/a-morsel-of-freedom-then-well-be-drowned-like-rats/
Johnson is ‘smarter’ .
And will do and achieve just the same.
“an opportunity to maintain changes that have been welcomed by people who now don’t want to lose transformations that have been innovative” during the pandemic.
Haha good one.
Very chilling- sounds like a line from any of the looters in Atlas Shrugged- they said it was all in the best interests of ‘the people’ too.
Actually, this sounds like run-of-the-mill communist party rethoric dressed in 21st century buzzwords.
NB: I wouldn’t usually use this comparison, but “the benefits of people’s revolution must be preserved for the people” is to close to that one to ignore the parallell. Obviously, there are larger numbers of unpeople who absolutely don’t want that, but they don’t matter to us.
Try reading Atlas Shrugged
No thanks. I’ve read 1.5 of Rand’s books and that’s more than enough for a lifetime.
I also think the translation into more 20th century communist rethoric is more important: That’s what this guy is actually saying after the managerial fluff speak has been stripped away.
The leftists are leftists because they are stupid and ignorant. They have three neurons (at most) that have broken relationships.
And they do not want to work. For them it is easier to steal.
first time I have heard that the medieval practice of covering faces was innovative.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fSpwSEVpk3I
Dennis Prager | The Left is Destroying Western Civilization | Reclaiming Conservatism Conference
At least Sturgeon is displaying just how horrific her version of independence would be before her subjects get the chance to vote against it.
But can we have a say next time? Why do we just have to pay the bill? If the good folk of Scotland have really gone so far as to actually want this I think we should be able to say ‘OK, here’s your independence, now sod off’.
Scottish communist, sorry National, Party are quite clearly all about top down control. Always have been.
In 2014 they were warning of the dangers of postal votes skip to last year and they encouraged them and got a lot of support. Hmmmm nothing fishy there.
Us true independence supporters hate her and her party.
They will ruin Scotland. Come visit whilst it still is Scotland. Won’t be for long
Scottish National Socialists = Snazis.
Love it. Let’s get this viral
She doesn’t want true independence – just a chance to join the EU with her hands outstretched. I think she would find that harder than she imagines, since I can’t see the EU agreeing to all this.
The woke health Taliban also support pulling down statues of those who’s presence reminds them their religion of state worship is a failure.
The Scottish Government should have never been given such powers in the first place and if the UK Government had any bottle it would legislate to remove them now. History has taught us that you can not effectively counter nationalist movements through appeasement.
Martin. The SNP are anything but nationalist. Have you seen anything they have done
Yes the SNP are EU-Fanatics.
…but they are also separatists. They assert Scottish superiority and anti- Englishness. That’s a natonalist ideology in my eyes.
Totalitarian regimes are nationalist – by definition. It is one of the strongest drivers.
No, Totalitarian regimes are “anti-neighbourist”.
Marxist Hitler and Stalin didn’t respect other nation’s borders and annexed them and robbed those peoples in order to fund.
Still ‘nationalist’.
Stalin was an “internationalist.”
Socialism is totalitarian
Socialism is NOT totalitarian. People who profess it are. And they commit crimes against Humans (they aren’t; animals they are).
On the contrary, socialism is totalitarian, by definition.
Socialism is full state control of the economy, it abolishes the market and market prices, making economic calculation impossible.
Insofar as nationalism equates with hating your neighbour, oh boy is the SNP nationalist.
They hate Scotland and are purposefully destroying the country
Whats with the Scottish bit of “permanent”, this applies to all gob shittes (politicians). Income tax is only temporary, the Covid act is only temporary but will be quietly forgotten and never repealed until they want to imprison the population again.
It’s not permanent. One day some force or power will sweep the likes of Sturgeon, Johnson, Macron et all into the sea. They will be forgotten but for a footnote about the need for vigilance re tinpot dictator wannabes.
Alfred North Whitehead:
A taste for power.
Power goes to the head.
Power corrupts.
etc.etc.
Hope they keep going down this route because it’s a cul-de-sac!
Tolkien knew what he was talking about in the Lord of the Rings. Power and gold corrupts. It turns elves into orcs.
It will be the goodly folk (hobbits/common man), who will ultimately come though and defeat this evil.
Money for nothing and your covid kicks for free (scotland 2021 august)
Scottish public spending deficit doubles to £36bn – BBC News
But if you work for the never-ending scottish gravy train quangos, all you now care about is a permanent policy to work from home.
Someone “with faith in MagicMoneyTree (modern Monetary) policy” will be along in a minute to claim this overspend is a saving.
And the English, as ever, foot the bill.
Divide & Rule to further the EU agenda.
Short version: Our Chinese business partners would be awfully unpleased to lose the opportunity to sell state-mandated throwaway masks of no particular value.
Jing! Crivvens! Wha could hae forseen it?
Well, all of us, of course.
It’s all bad, but this one really boils my haggis: “the wider use of fines as an alternative to prosecution”
A fixed penalty notice is not a “fine”. Fines are issued by courts, after prosecution (and conviction or a guilty plea). Any judge, magistrate, or sheriff will be very happy to explain the difference.
Among the many red lines being crossed is this acceptable that any jumped up little Stasi in a hi-vis costume can hand out “fines” that are anything more than a blackmail demand.
Always have your day in court, if only to tie up the nippy sweeties at the Fiscal.
Funny how he says “an opportunity to maintain changes that have been welcomed by people who now don’t want to lose transformations that have been innovative” but offers no indication how they know people want these things is it not? well, not really, since this is typial of Governments which seek to impose things detrimental to the population as a whole. Why didn’t they hold a referendum to ask people which things they want to retain since the SNP seem to love referendums that suit them?
I’m sure they won’t be the first country to make their ’emergency powers’ permanent. The problem is that very few people are objecting. It’s quite depressing really,
.
.. measures with “demonstrable benefit to the people of Scotland”..
So, lockdowns, masks and school closures?
A requirement to show ‘demonstrable benefit’ should hole this below the waterline before the ship sails.
Unfortunately, speaking as resident in Scotland, and having observed the difference in vibe compared to England lately, the only requirement to get overwhelming public support for Unquestioned-restrictions-on-liberty-any-time-any-place will be for Nicola to say it’ll be ‘good for Scotland’.