Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59 (3):290 – 300 (1981)
|Abstract||What is Mill's principle of liberty? The question may seem superfluous, since he gave his own apparently careful formulation (223/34-224/10).[Note 1] However he gave several formulations in different terms, and his principle has been interpreted in a number of ways.[Note 2] The Acts meant to be subject to social control have been said variously to be other-regarding acts, acts which harm others, or affect them, or affect their interests, or violate duties owed to them, or violate their rights. These formulae are not equivalent. An act may harm others (indirectly), yet not be other-regarding; an other-regarding act may harm others without any violation of duty; an act may violate a duty to others without violating anyone's right. But it seems to me clear enough, if all Mill's statements are taken together, that the correct formulation is this: punishment is justified only for violations of secondary rules prescribing duties to others. Duty and Liberty divide the whole field of human conduct, without overlap; and there are no duties besides duties to others|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jovan Babic (2006). Self-Regarding / Other-Regarding Acts: Some Remarks. Prolegomena 5 (2):193-207.
Madison Powers, Ruth Faden & Yashar Saghai (2012). Liberty, Mill and the Framework of Public Health Ethics. Public Health Ethics 5 (1):6-15.
Mulnix (2009). Harm, Rights, and Liberty: Towards a Non-Normative Reading of Mill's Liberty Principle. Journal of Moral Philosophy 6 (2):196-217.
Michael Morreau (1996). Prima Facie and Seeming Duties. Studia Logica 57 (1):47 - 71.
Gregory Mellema (1987). What is Optional in the Fulfillment of Duty? Faith and Philosophy 4 (3):282-293.
Ted Honderich (1967). Mill on Liberty. Inquiry 10 (1-4):292 – 297.
Richard Arneson, Listed Below Are Some Examples That Mil Introduces to Help Interpret His Liberty Principle and to Illustrate its Application.
Elizabeth Blanks Hindman (1999). Divergence of Duty: Differences in Legal and Ethical Responsibilities. Journal of Mass Media Ethics 14 (4):213-230.
Jonathan Riley (2005). J. S. Mill's Doctrine of Freedom of Expression. Utilitas 17 (2):147-179.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #142,190 of 722,699 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #60,006 of 722,699 )
How can I increase my downloads?