John Stuart Mill's The Harm Principle

In addition, John Stuart Mill addressed a very important topic that relates to the society and named the idea the harm principle. This states that the only actions that can be restricted are ones that constitute harm. These are the limitations Mills talks about when it comes to free speech. So the question is when can the government intervene? When can the authority of society rightly limit individuality? In Mill’s words, when can the government rightly limit “sovereignty of the individual over himself (Mill 63)?” If a person’s action only harms him then it does not require government intervention. In other words, the government does not have the right to prevent him from making those decisions. This rule sounds a little absurd because Mill makes it seem so easy to just let someone do whatever he or she wants regardless of how much harm that it is causing that individual. An
Earlier in On Liberty, he makes clear the target of the harm principle when he says that the only freedom that deserves the name “is that of pursuing our good in our way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it” (Mill 10). The authority of the society makes laws to govern and protect the people under its sovereignty. In my opinion, there are many factors that people need protection. However, this harm rule is for the protection of people from people. Many questions arise when it comes to the harm rule. Does the harm have to be physical or psychological? Does the harmed party have to be human? In analyzing the rule, it becomes evident that it is too indefinite to govern alone. The principle does not specifically address these questions, but the most important aim of it is to protect life. That is why it really matters the way someone might want to express his opinion and in what action would be most