Social Philosophy Essay Example for Free

Social Philosophy EssayIntroductionAs more(prenominal) and more cities, counties, states, and counties ban smoking in public places, place high taxes on cigargonttes, and otherwise enact anti-smoking laws, clashes among the rights of one group of people and the rights of a nonher are inevitable. If this convention were the basis for deciding public policy, which manufacturing plant advocated as one of its usages, poor boy would fall somewhere in the middle on the smoking/anti-smoking spectrum. Certainly, swots legal injury principle rump be (and has been) used by both sides to support their consume arguments. In the smoking deliberate, the ill-treat principle falls short in determining which of two traumas is lesser, or which of two rights or interests is greater. This is why it is a useful philosophy in debate, but should non be the sole basis for legislation and public policy. washbowl Stuart Mills Harm PrincipleIn On Liberty, seat Stuart Mill argued for a societ y organized around one very simple principle that the sole stop over for which mankind are warranted, idiosyncraticly or collectively, in interfering with the freedom of action of any of their number, is self-protection (15-16). This is referred to as the harm principle, and is considered one of the founding principles of utilitarianism (Wilson 45-48). Utilitarianism is a belief governance which adopts the harm principle, arguing that each somebody has the right is postdate his or her own happiness, as hanker as that pursuit doesnt harm other individual as well pursing their happiness or expediency (Wilson 40-44). This is not quite the same as interfering or impeding an individuals mode to happiness, as Mill points out in chapter V of On Liberty In numerous cases, an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and in that respectfore legitimately causes pain or loss to others, or intercepts a good which they had a reasonable hope of obtaining (106-7).In oth er words, Mill recognized that there was not a utopia where every individual could pursue happiness with no overlap when, for example, two individuals pursue happiness through and through the same, singular person. Mills goal was to create a principle that could shell out as the basis for society, in legislation, and in social standards and customs. In the final chapter he goes into signifi washstandt gunpoint regarding the kinds of situations to which this principle could be applied, specifically how far liberty whitethorn legitimately be invaded for the prevention of crime, or of accident (108). Mill favors the strongest strictures on liberty in the case of children, where he argues for potential parents having to prove their pecuniary fitness in order to squander children at all, and then to provide education for all children (121-122).On issues of crime, he considers government to properly put on a place as a precautionary, administrative face than as a legislative and pun itive one (Mill 128). Throughout the treatise, Mill treads the line between the liberties of individuals and the fealty each individual has to society, seeing individuals as heroes who must consistently fight against the whitewashing of democratic society, warning that If foe waits til life is reduced nearly to one uniform type, all deviations from that type will come to be considered impious, immoral, even monstrous and contrary to spirit (84).How the Harm Principle Relates to Anti-Smoking LawsMill specifically discusses the sale of poisons and taxes on the sale of certain substances deemed to be immoral (109-113). He argues for both the sale and taxation of, for example, alcohol, as cosmos regulation that is not contrary to principle (109). Therefore, we can extrapolate that he would not necessarily be averse to taxes on the sale of cigarettes, sinceIt must be remembered that taxation for fiscal purposes is absolutely inevitable that in most countries it is necessary that a co nsiderable part of that taxation should be indirect that the State, therefore, cannot help shocking penalties, which to some persons may be prohibitory, on the use of some articles of consumption. (114)This is important because it underlines Mills philosophy of harm as it relates to economics. He did not believe that by adding taxation which would put the price of a certain item out of reach for some individuals, that this was harming them in such a way as to impose on their pursuit of happiness and utility. He considered taxation to be most properly levied against what commodities the consumer can best spare (114). Cigarettes and tobacco are certainly considered extras rather than necessities in contemporaneous society, but they necessitate not always been considered as such. So where, at certain points and in certain cultures, cigarettes were considered something of necessity, the taxation of them would have been an encroachment from the State onto an individuals liberty.This c ase problematizes the relationship between Mills harm principle and his theory of democratic societies being slavishly ruled by the majority intellection. We have seen an wide shift in popular opinion regarding the use of tobacco in the United States. What may have been an affront on liberty 50 or 100 years ago (heavy taxation of cigarettes and tobacco products) may be viewed now as simply being necessary to fund our government. If societies are not static entities, and the mores of a single society may shift over even short periods of time, how can we be sure that the currently prevailing opinion is, in fact, the right one? Mill believed that confederation has expended fully as much effort in the attempt to compel people to conform to its notions of personal, as of social excellence (19).Indeed the taxation of cigarettes seems to amount to a sin tax, as more of a punishment than a tax of an item which is not absolutely necessary to survival. Medical science is not immune to the se changing tides in public opinion. During the waning years of Prohibition in this country, teetotalers claimed that the exhalation of hint from a person drinking alcohol could effectively poison an innocent person standing nearby (Stewart lines 18-19). Similarly, anti-smoking proponents claim today that the exhalations of smoke from one individual can adversely affect the health of another individual.Mill saw this as an argument against censorship We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavoring to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still (14). While we may not be able to know without doubt which opinion is the right one, Mill saw this as an opportunity for individuals to exercise their liberty through discussion and debate. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Mill, Fred Wilson discusses the important of debate in Mills philosophyOnly through free debate can such detailed skills be developed and maintained our sel f-development as reasonable persons, capable of critical assessments for belief and action (45). The goal is not to produce an unerringly right decision, but to create a society where open and honest discussion is a part of the mechanism of liberty in society, as both a check on our human fallibility and an encouragement to progress.Why the Harm Principle is short(p) as a Basis for Public PolicyThe harm principle provides a philosophy of the individual and his or her relationship to society which is useful as an individual or institution level philosophy. This is in particular true for those individuals or institutions without a set of religious beliefs, as the harm principle provides a system of rules of morality to follow. However, as the basis for legislation and public policy, it is somewhat inadequate. There are, more often than not, many people with conflicting interests, and while the harm principle may form the basis of discussion, in the end an individuals liberty may be stifled in favor of anothers.At that point, the decision has to be made as to which liberty is more important. In the case of smoking bans, an individual who derives happiness from smoking, particularly happiness from smoking in a public place, where he or she is also able to drink and socialize with friends, is taken away. At the same time, other individuals are not subjected to the workable ill health effects of secondhand smoke. The harm principle provides a useful lens through which to frame the debate, but policymakers must often make slightly messier decisions than On Liberty provides for.The very nature of public opinion as Mill saw it (which was as a tyrannical force) means that the definitions of harm will change throughout history and across geography. This leads to both sides of the smoking debate claiming Mill as a member of their side. In an interview, Mill biographer Richard Reeves, in discussing the misuse of Mill by policymakers, said thatWhat sometimes happens is that if you are doing something thats actually quite paternalistic, and you dont take to say so because you want to dress it up as a liberal policy, you might use Mill. And you stretch the harm principle well beyond reasonable usage to justify whats fundamentally a paternalistic policy. The castigate thing is to dress up a paternalistic argument in shoddy, ill-worn, liberal clothing (par. 9).Mill saw the free thought and operation of the individual as being necessary to the progress of society, and curiously as a check against both the State and prevailing public opinion (19).ConclusionIn this essay I have described and critically examined Mills harm principle and how it relates to the contemporary issue of anti-smoking laws. I have argued that the harm principle as applied to anti-smoking laws is and could be used by either side of the debate. An individual who smokes finds his or her happiness circumscribed by the happiness of those individuals who do not wish to have cigarette smoke in the public places they frequent, and vice versa.A group of individuals are going to have their liberty trespassed upon in order for other groups of individuals to retain their liberty, and rather than bringing harm to none there are only degrees of harm, which are considered more or less harmful fit in to the current tides of public discourse. While this creates space for a robust debate (one of the requirements of a society base on liberty), it does not provide a basis for policymakers and legislators to create public policy.Works CitedMayes, Tessa. Mill is a Dead White Male With Something to Say. Spiked Review of Books 28 March 2008. 16 April 2008 http//www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/reviewof books_article/4923.Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and The Subjection of Women. New York Penguin, 2006.Stewart, C. The Case Against Smoking Bans. 2002. New York City C.L.A.S.H. 18 April 2008 http//www.nycclash.com/CaseAgainstBans/Conclusion.htmlConclusion.Wilson, Fred. John Stuart Mill. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Fall 2007). Stanford University. 15 April 2008 http//plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2007/ entries/mill/.