The harm principle is a theory by John Stuart Mill that is one of the oldest principles that connects law and morals. The harm principle states that “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” (Tasson et al., 2015, p. 106). In other words, Mill believes it is only justifiable for the state to intervene in the private life of an individual, when their actions brings harms to other. Mill’s main argument in his harm theory is that, in the private life of an individual, one should be free to their opinion and do as they please “at their own cost” (Tasson et al., 2015, p. 106). This principle is important to John Stuart Mill because he believes …show more content…
106). Mill explains that the state should not interfere with an individual’s private life, especially if the life they live in private has no effect on society and causes no harm to other. This is a practical point, because there should be a limit to how far the law goes and what the state can enforce. What one does behind closed doors should not necessarily concern the state. The weaknesses Mill’s harm principle faces is that, it speaks highly of a free society and demands full freedom of an individual, allowing them to do whatever at their own risk, even if it causes harm to themselves, due to his idea of “experiment living” (Tasson et al., 2015, p. 107). On the other hand, Lord Patrick Devlin argues that, the state should intervene because “one must act on what he believes to be true” (Tasson et al., 2015, p. 108). The strength of Devlin’s perspective on Mill’s harm principle, is that, he promotes common morality. A society is an ordered community that lives together as one body therefore, the society’s views on what is good and evil should be similar if not the same. Steven Vago and Adie Nelson in Law and Society state that “society could not exist without accepting certain basic values, principals and standards” as a result, “a shared morality is essential” (Vago & Nelson, 2013, p. 230). However, the weaknesses …show more content…
107). However, without common morality on what is good, individuals could be led astray and begin to do the intolerable. Devlin implies that the freedom to act would automatically follow the freedom of opinion if you allow individuals to disregard morals in a private setting (Tasson et al., 2015, p. 107). For example, in the R v. Labaye case, Jean-Paul Labaye was charged with keeping a bawdy-house were couples and single people would meet indecently for sexual activities (labaye). Lack of morals could negatively affect an individual’s actions, thus a lack of common morals or a shared sense of what is good and evil could negatively affect a society. Devlin believes that it is acceptable to think, but not necessarily acceptable to act (Tasson et al., 2015, p. 107). Although all acts with in the apartment, where the bawdy-house took place, were consensually voluntary and caused no harm to those outside the bawdy-house; which Mill would find justifiable, the state still intervened due to the social harm found with the brothel (labaye). John Stuart Mill’s harm principle was specific and detailed regarding the freeness of an individual and the notion that one should be able to do as they please as long it does not cause harm to others however, what it lacked