Question

Mill's 'greatest happiness principle' (or 'doctrine of utility') holds that "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong in proportion as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By 'happiness' is meant pleasure and the absence of pain; by 'unhappiness' is meant pain and the lack of pleasure" ('Utilitarianism', p. 2). Will this doctrine always be compatible with the 'harm principle'? Why/why not? In your response, consider an argument from Chapter 2.

Answer 1

The harm principle states that the actions of individuals have to be such that these should be successful in interfering with other people’s freedom so that they would not be able to cause any harm to anyone. According to this principle, if forceful power is exercised on someone else, that has to be done only in order to prevent them from preventing to harm someone else. This would be true in most of the cases, except for the psychopaths or the sadists who find pleasure in hurting other people.