About this book This book recovers and recommends the core conviction of Victorian liberal theory that human beings, with the help of the state, can achieve an objective moral perfection. Show all. Perfection Pages Malachuk, Daniel S. Experience Pages Malachuk, Daniel S.
Liberalism without Perfection - Oxford Scholarship
Culture Pages Malachuk, Daniel S. Conclusion Pages Malachuk, Daniel S. Show next xx. Services for this book Download High-Resolution Cover. Recht Steuern Wirtschaft. Erschienen: Auf die Merkliste Drucken Weiterempfehlung. Malachuk Perfection, the State, and Victorian Liberalism sofort lieferbar! PDF Palgrave Macmillan. Despite this robust rationale for liberties of thought and action, it is also important to see that Mill is not treating liberty as an intrinsic good or endorsing an unqualified right to liberty.
First, we should note that Mill does not defend liberty per se , but only certain basic liberties. His defense focuses on three basic categories of liberty I Though these liberties evidently include quite a bit, there is no suggestion here that any and all liberty deserves protection.
Why not? Insofar as Mill defends individual liberties by appeal to deliberative values, he can distinguish the importance of different liberties in terms of their role in practical deliberation. But some liberties seem more central than others to the selection of personal ideals. Second, even the exercise of basic liberties is limited by the harm principle, which justifies restricting liberty to prevent harm to others.
An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justifiably incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard. There are interesting questions about the correct interpretation of the harm principle, which we will examine later.
Third, it is important to be clear about how Mill values basic liberties. To account for the robust character of his perfectionist argument, it is tempting to suppose that Mill thinks these basic liberties are themselves important intrinsic goods see Berger 41, 50, , —32; Bogen and Farrell — So, for instance, the prohibition on paternalism does not extend to children with immature deliberative faculties or to adults with very limited normative competence, whether due to congenital defects or social circumstance.
Instead, Mill claims that these liberties have value only when various necessary conditions for the exercise of deliberative capacities—in particular, sufficient rational development or normative competence—are in place. First, recall that Mill distinguishes between harm and mere offense.
Liberalism without Perfection
Not every unwelcome consequence for others counts as a harm. Offenses tend to be comparatively minor and ephemeral. To constitute a harm, an action must be injurious or set back important interests of particular people, interests in which they have rights I 12; III 1; IV 3, 10, 12; V 5. Whereas Mill appears to reject the regulation of mere offense, the harm principle appears to be the one justification he recognizes for restricting liberty.
Second, Mill envisions that the harm principle is something that we can apply prospectively to prevent someone from acting in certain ways and causing harm. In many cases all we could reasonably know is that a given action risks harm.
Fortunately, this seems to be all that Mill requires IV There are interesting and important questions about what threshold of risk must be met for purposes of the harm principle, which Mill does not address. Presumably, the threshold should vary inversely with the magnitude of the harm risked, so that the probability of harm required to justify regulation is lower the greater the harm risked. Third, Mill wants the harm principle to have wide scope. He insists that the harm principle regulates more than relations between government and individuals. Its application should include the family, in particular, relationships between husbands and wives and parents and children V Here, he prefigures some claims he will develop in The Subjection of Women discussed below.
Fourth, though Mill often focuses simply on harm, it appears that his real focus is on non-consensual harm I 2; see Saunders It is not that one cannot be hurt by something one has consented to or freely risked. Rather, when one has knowingly and willing risked something harmful, one cannot legitimately complain when that harm comes home to roost. Having my nose broken surely counts as a harm, but if you broke my nose in a boxing match, I cannot fairly complain about the harm, because I consented to the risk.
Does Mill really treat the harm principle as the sole legitimate basis for restricting the liberties of individuals?
Liberalism without Perfection
As we have seen, Mill cannot think that harm prevention is sufficient to justify restricting liberty. OL IV 3. Later, Mill makes clear that harm prevention is necessary but not sufficient to justify restrictions on liberty. These claims demonstrate that Mill is not committed to a simple version of the sufficiency of harm for restrictions on liberty.
However, these claims are compatible with Mill endorsing a weaker version of sufficiency. If anyone does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him by law or, where legal penalties are safely applicable, by general disapprobation. If the regulation is more harmful than the behavior in question, it may be best not to regulate, despite the pro tanto case for regulation. This suggests that we should distinguish stronger and weaker versions of the idea that harm is sufficient to justify regulation. Once we distinguish these options, there is a pretty compelling case for thinking that Mill rejects strong sufficiency but embraces weak sufficiency.
But notice that if Mill rejects strong sufficiency then this compromises his one very simple principle. For only strong sufficiency shows that the harm principle is a complete guide to the regulation of liberty, telling us both when regulation is impermissible and when it is required.
Even weak sufficiency implies that the harm principle must be supplemented with some other principle, such as the utilitarian principle, in order to determine if regulation is permissible, much less required. In rejecting strong sufficiency, Mill claims that actions that cause losses in a fair competition should not be regulated V 3—4.
Unfortunately, Mill is not entirely clear about the basis for the free-trade exception. After all, losses, even in a fair competition, can be harmful. If I have a successful business selling widgets and then you move into the area selling widgets at a big discount and drive me out of business, forcing me into bankruptcy, I suffer a significant loss, making me worse off than I would otherwise have been.
- Download Perfection, The State, And Victorian Liberalism.
- The Avant-Garde: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions).
- History in Focus.
- Herbert Spencer?
- L. T. HOBHOUSE.
- Academic Tools?
- Main navigation.
If Mill accepts weak, rather than strong, sufficiency, then he might claim that though there is a reason to regulate harmful economic competition the costs of interfering with free markets are too great. His official position seems to be that the harm principle should not be applied to such economic harms IV 4.
It is hard to see why Mill embraces this sort of free-trade exception. A different and better reply would not suspend the operation of the harm principle in such cases but rather claim that such losses should not be understood as harms, in the relevant sense. Mill might make either of two related arguments for not treating such losses as harms. First, he might invoke the volenti principle and insist that the harm principle targets only non-consensual harms.
He could then argue that in a market economy that ensures fair terms of cooperation economic losses of the sort described are freely risked and so consensual, in the relevant sense. Second, Mill can and does claim that competitive losses are not harms, because they do not deprive economic actors of something to which they have a right OL V 3. You may beat me out in a fair competition for a job.
- The After-Hours Trader.
- Bibliographic Information.
- Work / Life Balance For Dummies;
- Human Geography of the UK: An Introduction;
- RELATED ARTICLES;
- The Measurement of Intelligence!
- Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy.
Instead, what I have is a right of fair opportunity to compete for the job. Is harm necessary to justify regulation? These two sorts of exception present somewhat different issues. In discussing enforceable duties to give evidence or Samaritan aid, Mill claims that the failure to confer benefits constitutes harm.
But it is not in general true that the failure to provide benefits always counts as a harm.
In many cases it seems not to. Presumably, because we assess harms counterfactually: if x harms me, it makes me significantly worse off than I would have been otherwise. This makes clear that harms are assessed relative to some baseline. It is an interesting question how to set the baseline. But the baseline cannot be set by the restriction on liberty itself; that would convert all failures to benefit into harms. The baseline must have some independent rationale.
A classic example of the sort of Samaritan duty that Mill favors would be the requirement to save a drowning child when I could do so at little cost or risk to myself. It is not clear that my failure to rescue harms the child. Have I made the child worse-off than he would otherwise have been? Well, relative to what baseline? Of course, I have made him worse-off relative to the baseline situation in which Good Samaritanism is compulsory. But why select that baseline?
By hypothesis, he would have drowned in my absence. If so, it is not clear that I harm the person whom I fail to rescue. This is not to deny that my failure to rescue is wrong and perhaps that the law ought to compel aid in such cases. But it does raise questions about whether we can justify Good Samaritan laws by appeal to the harm principle.