This discussion presents the ‘harm principle,’ arguments for and against the liberal interpretation of this principle, and presents Lafollette’s reasoning that the banning of guns, particularly handguns does not violate the tenets of this principle. On the other hand, the possession of nuclear weapons, which have caused no deaths in more than half a century, is illegal.
For instance, automobiles and tobacco cause many deaths worldwide every day but driving and smoking are legal. However, as Hugh Lafollette argues in Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, while using the harm principle to determine whether or not the government’s intervention into personal decisions is legitimate, factors of degree and probability that a person’s actions might harm others must be considered as well.
#Mill harm principle summary free
Laws that inhibit or prohibit individual autonomy when their actions are causing no harm are an example of a free state violating its moral obligation to the people it represents and overstepping the limits of legislative powers given to it by the people. They point to statistics that demonstrate that most gun owners do not use them to commit crimes therefore should not be, according to the principle, restricted by law to possess guns. Opponents of gun control often employ John Stuart Mills’ “Harm Principle” as one justification for owning firearms.
0 kommentar(er)
