Summary
Highlights
John Stuart Mill's liberalism promotes tolerance, but only for actions that do not harm others. This is known as the Harm Principle: power can only be rightfully exercised over an individual against their will to prevent harm to others.
The Harm Principle dictates that we can tolerate behavior unless it threatens another person, such as theft or murder, which clearly cause harm and are not permitted. We can be intolerant of actions that cause harm to others.
Despite its clarity, the Harm Principle can lead to contradictions. For example, driving cars has undeniably caused harm and deaths. Should driving, therefore, not be tolerated and banned, as it puts innocent people at risk daily?
One argument for tolerating driving is that its overall benefit to society outweighs the harm. However, this shifts the principle from harm to utilitarianism, raising the question: should we tolerate something if it causes harm, as long as it brings more good?
The Harm Principle primarily addresses harm to others. This raises a dilemma: should we tolerate individuals who pose harm to themselves? The video questions if tolerance should include self-destructive behaviors, as humans are prone to mistakes and might need protection from themselves.
Expanding the Harm Principle to include harm to oneself, meaning we would not tolerate actions that could harm the individual, introduces new issues. This could lead to unnecessary interference in people's lives and the curbing of individual freedoms, ultimately fostering an intolerant society.