Graduate studies at Western
Inquiry 10 (1-4):292 – 297 (1967)
|Abstract||The traditional objection to Mill's principle governing the interference of state and society in the lives of individuals is that it excludes interference only in the case of actions that harm nobody at all. Interpretations of Mill's essay which escape this objection have been suggested by J. C. Rees and Richard Wollheim. In one case Mill is said to have been concerned with harm to established interests, in the other with harm which arises by way of the beliefs of those injured. The author of the present article proposes an alternative interpretation which better represents Mill's intention and escapes objections which may be raised against the principles expounded by Rees and Wollheim. Once again, however, Mill's principle emerges as seriously flawed|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Pergiorgio Donatelli (2006). Mill's Perfectionism. Prolegomena 5 (2):149-164.
Alan Haworth (2007). On Mill, Infallibility, and Freedom of Expression. Res Publica 13 (1):77-100.
Jonathan Wolff (1998). Mill, Indecency and the Liberty Principle. Utilitas 10 (1):1-16.
Jonathan Riley (2005). J. S. Mill's Doctrine of Freedom of Expression. Utilitas 17 (2):147-179.
John Kilcullen (1981). Mill on Duty and Liberty. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59 (3):290 – 300.
Richard Arneson, Listed Below Are Some Examples That Mil Introduces to Help Interpret His Liberty Principle and to Illustrate its Application.
Chin-Liew Ten (2002). Was Mill a Liberal? Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1 (3):355-370.
Madison Powers, Ruth Faden & Yashar Saghai (2012). Liberty, Mill and the Framework of Public Health Ethics. Public Health Ethics 5 (1):6-15.
Added to index2009-02-04
Total downloads10 ( #114,556 of 740,832 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #37,452 of 740,832 )
How can I increase my downloads?