Mill's harm principle states that everything that causes harm should be banned.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

The statement presented posits a blanket rule of Mill’s harm principle: that everything causing harm should be banned. 
Beginning with a broader view, John Stuart Mill’s harm principle is commonly interpreted as allowing individuals to do as they wish unless their actions cause harm to others. This emphasizes liberty in self-regarding choices but permits intervention when there is demonstrable harm to others. 
To unpack the claim, consider what counts as ‘harm’: Mill distinguished between actions that affect only the individual and those that affect other people. The principle does not advocate banning all actions that might indirectly cause discomfort or offense if those actions do not harm others in a tangible, negative way. 
Moreover, Mill distinguished between self-regarding actions (which should largely be free) and actions that affect others (which may be regulated to prevent harm). This means the principle functions as a boundary-setting rule, not as an absolutist ban on any potentially harmful outcome. 
Another layer is the practical implication: determining what constitutes ‘harm’ can be complex, involve trade-offs, and require proportional responses. Blanket bans would overstep the intended safeguard by stifling personal liberties for harms that are minimal, uncertain, or preventable with less intrusive means. 
Additionally, Mill argued for the importance of individual freedom as a constraint on government power, not a mandate to ban every harmful outcome outright. The nuanced view recognizes that preventing harm is legitimate, but not at the cost of suppressing all personal autonomy. 
In short, the claim misstates Mill’s position by treating harm as an absolute trigger for prohibition, whereas Mill’s harm principle allows restrictions to prevent harm to others but preserves broad freedom for self-regarding choices and refrains from banning all actions that may cause harm in some sense. 
Note: If the question included alternative options, we would assess each, but with the given statement, the central issue is whether the principle supports banning everything that causes harm, which is not aligned with Mill’s nuanced constitutional liberty framework.

PHI 007Y A01 WQ 2025 Final Exam

Mill's harm principle states that everything that causes harm should be banned.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

Which principle did John Stuart Mill articulate in defense of free speech?

Mill's harm principle states that everything that causes harm should be banned.

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

Under the assumptions used in cost-volume-profit analysis, as the activity increases:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler