The Harm Principle

The harm principle is the liberal claim that society may rightfully use coercion against an individual only to prevent harm to others, and not merely for the individual's own good or to enforce morality.

Definition

The harm principle holds that the only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community against their will is to prevent harm to others; their own good is not a sufficient warrant.

Scope

Covers Mill's formulation and its self-regarding/other-regarding distinction, Feinberg's systematic elaboration (including offence), debates over paternalism, legal moralism, and the Hart-Devlin controversy over the enforcement of morals. Excludes general theories of liberty, treated elsewhere.

Core questions

• When may society legitimately restrict an individual's freedom?
• What counts as 'harm' for purposes of justified coercion?
• Is paternalistic interference for a person's own good ever legitimate?
• May the law be used to enforce a shared morality even absent harm?

Key concepts

• harm
• self-regarding vs. other-regarding conduct
• paternalism
• the offence principle
• legal moralism
• the Hart-Devlin debate

Key theories

Mill's harm principle

Mill argues that the individual is sovereign over conduct that concerns only themselves, and that coercion is legitimate solely to prevent harm to others, ruling out paternalism and the legal enforcement of morality.

Feinberg's elaboration

Feinberg refines the principle by analysing the concept of harm as wrongful setback to interests and by distinguishing a separate, weaker 'offence principle', while rejecting legal paternalism and moralism as independent grounds for criminalization.

Legal moralism

Devlin argues against the harm principle that a society is entitled to use law to protect its shared morality, since a recognized morality is part of the bonds that hold society together.

History

The principle was stated canonically in Mill's On Liberty (1859). Its limits were tested in the 20th-century Hart-Devlin debate over the legal enforcement of morality prompted by the Wolfenden Report, and given its most systematic modern treatment in Feinberg's four-volume The Moral Limits of the Criminal Law (1984-88).

Debates

Should law enforce morality?

The Hart-Devlin dispute over whether the law may criminalize conduct simply because it offends a shared morality, against Mill's restriction of coercion to the prevention of harm.

Is offence a kind of harm?

Whether serious offence to others can justify coercion, and if so whether it falls under the harm principle or requires a distinct, weaker offence principle, as Feinberg argues.

Key figures

• John Stuart Mill
• Joel Feinberg
• Patrick Devlin
• H. L. A. Hart

Seminal works

• mill1859
• feinberg1984

Frequently asked questions

Does the harm principle permit paternalism?

On Mill's strict version it does not: interfering with competent adults purely for their own good is illegitimate, since only the prevention of harm to others justifies coercion, though some later theorists defend limited 'soft' paternalism.