Inquiry 10 (1-4):292 – 297 (1967)
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)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Listed Below Are Some Examples That Mil Introduces to Help Interpret His Liberty Principle and to Illustrate its Application.Richard Arneson - unknown
Mill on Duty and Liberty.John Kilcullen - 1981 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 59 (3):290 – 300.
On Mill, Infallibility, and Freedom of Expression.Alan Haworth - 2007 - Res Publica 13 (1):77-100.
Liberty, Mill and the Framework of Public Health Ethics.Madison Powers, Ruth Faden & Yashar Saghai - 2012 - Public Health Ethics 5 (1):6-15.
Added to index2009-02-04
Total downloads14 ( #327,050 of 2,153,830 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #398,274 of 2,153,830 )
How can I increase my downloads?