Introduction
Opponents of gun control often employ John Stuart Mills’ “Harm Principle” as one justification for owning firearms. They point to statistics that demonstrate that most gun owners do not use them to commit crimes therefore should not be, according to the principle, restricted by law to possess guns. Laws that inhibit or prohibit individual autonomy when their actions are causing no harm are an example of a free state violating its moral obligation to the people it represents and overstepping the limits of legislative powers given to it by the people. However, as Hugh Lafollette argues in Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, while using the harm principle to determine whether or not the government’s intervention into personal decisions is legitimate, factors of degree and probability that a person’s actions might harm others must be considered as well. It’s a delicate and arguable balance. For instance, automobiles and tobacco cause many deaths worldwide every day but driving and smoking are legal. On the other hand, the possession of nuclear weapons, which have caused no deaths in more than half a century, is illegal. This discussion presents the ‘harm principle,’ arguments for and against the liberal interpretation of this principle, and presents Lafollette’s reasoning that the banning of guns, particularly handguns does not violate the tenets of this principle.
Arguments of opposers
To support the argument of those opposed to gun control, advocates point to Mills’ “Harm Principle.” As outlined in his influential1859 work, On Liberty, Mills argued that an adult should be allowed to do what they want to do provided that their action does not cause harm to someone else. The 1957 Wolfenden Committee report, in line with this thinking, recommended that “there must remain a realm of private morality and immorality that is ‘not the law’s business’ (Kipnis, 1977, p. 44). Lord Patrick Devlin, then a British judge, disputed the report published while he sat on the bench arguing for the use of law to preserve morality and thus society itself. Devlin recommended punishment for violating society’s morals which were ambiguously defined as being those behaviors that would disgust a ‘right-minded person.’ Devlin believed that criminal prosecution could alter behavior in both the individual and society in general. If the aberrant behavior wasn’t rectified in a public and punishing way, Devlin believed that society’s moral fabric would simply unravel. It was necessary, therefore, to apply criminal law to enforce the morals of society, thus defending social order itself. Professor and philosopher H.L.A. Hart opposed Devlin’s viewpoint explaining that immorality does not jeopardize society and that Devlin’s stance implies that the morality of society can’t change. Hart maintained that there is a common morality in a multi-cultural society, but that we would have no freedom as civilized human beings if we could do things only of which the collective whole approved (Hilgendorf, 2005).
The center of Hart’s argument is the “Harm Principle” extrapolated from John Mill’s composition 100 years earlier. “..That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (Mill, 1885). Devlin, surprisingly, agreed with this premise. The distinction of how a changing morality affects society and what degree of harm it inflicts upon it versus the rights of individuals to live as they please without fear of repression is a long-standing debate in all parts of the world over a long period. Hart conceded that people will do what they want to do whether it is lawful or not. To imprison a citizen for an act that affects no one but the consenting individual, Hart said, is an immoral act in itself.
Hart went on to say that for a legal system to function effectively, the rules must be understood by all those individuals to whom they apply. If the rules are not sufficiently clear, then there may be uncertainty about the obligations which have been imposed on individuals. Moral and legal rules may apply to similar aspects of conduct, such as the obligation to be honest and truthful or the obligation to respect the rights of other individuals. However, moral rules cannot always be changed in the same way that legal rules can be changed (Hart, 1994). The division of the two philosophies is a matter of where a person draws the line between civil liberties and societal control. A violent crime, no matter how heinous, does not destroy the fabric of society. Murders take place every day in every nation, yet civilized people carry on in a civilized manner before, during, and after the horrible incidents. If that is true, neither does a crime against another’s moral stance destroy the moral fabric of society.
Lafollette takes the side of Hart in the ‘no harm’ debate and acknowledges the dilemma the issue of gun ownership brings to the debate. “The decision to permit private ownership of guns is shaped by two factors pulling in opposite directions. Our commitment to individual liberty weighs against the government’s abolishing or restricting the private ownership of guns as a way of limiting harm” (Lafollette, p. 330). While a staunch supporter of individual liberties, Lafollette suggests that if sufficient evidence can be provided that certain liberties such as gun ownership cause a disproportionate amount of harm relative to the action, then society has a reasoned basis by which to restrict this action. “As the evidence increases, the reasons for prohibiting the behavior increase. As the probability that the behavior will lead to serious harm (the product of the gravity and extent of the harm) approaches certainty, then the reasons for forbidding the behavior become very strong. The more grave and widespread the potential harm, the more reason we have to constrain the behavior. If the gravity and extent of the harm are substantial, we might constrain the behavior even if our evidence that the behavior causes the harm is moderate” (Lafollette, p. 331).
The concept that easy access to firearms, such as the case in the United States, has an important impact on the homicide rates in that country is supported by the preponderance of the evidence. “Gun control supporters offer empirical evidence of a positive correlation between murder rates and the availability of guns (especially handguns)” (Lafollette p. 332). Nearly two-thirds of all homicides taking place in the U.S. involve a firearm. In the year 2002, more than 3000 American children died as a result of guns, mostly handguns. That breaks down to 50 children being shot and killed each week or eight per day, one every three hours. Four to five times this many are wounded from gunfire. These numbers are startling enough. Now insert the more than 5000 kids under 18 killed by guns in 2005 and the figures jump to nearly 100 per week, 15 per day, and 1 every hour and a half. American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. Compare this with Britain where 19 children were killed by guns in 2005 and Japan where none were killed. Both of these countries, as opposed to the U.S., have enacted strict gun control laws (“Statistics” 2005).
Balancing freedom and harmful effect
When balancing individual freedom and the potentially harmful effect of that freedom on society, the right to own guns is outweighed by the destructive consequences. “The most important problem raised in the scholarly debate concerning bans on guns is intentional deaths: most of the anti-gun literature is sharply focused on the idea that guns make deliberate acts of violence more likely. This is the sort of risk that makes them especially dangerous objects” (Lafollette p. 317). The intention of automobiles, for example, is for purposes related to transportation while guns are bought for one main reason, to potentially be used to shoot someone. “No one would deny that a liberal state, even the relatively constrained state of wide liberalism, may prohibit activities that kill or maim others” (Lafollette p. 317).
We, as a society, are continuously growing toward tolerance in both our legislation and our minds. Evidence of this fact exists in the laws enacted since the historic debate between Devlin and Hart on these issues. Lawmakers have altered rules regarding abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and controlled substances since this high-profile dialogue was introduced. Although the ‘no harm, no foul’ concept is equally subjective in its flippant succinctness, it is at the same time easily understood to relate to serious individual harm caused by another’s actions. If no serious harm has been inflicted, it becomes difficult to prove a crime has taken place. Because of the ease with which the concept is both understood and applied, it is natural for society to evolve toward the ‘Harm Principle.’ It is paradoxical that though it is the most liberal-minded who support the ‘no harm’ theory and have been specifically vocal in issues such as those previously mentioned also support gun control. Many opponents of gun control would deny other individual freedoms such as gay marriage, abortion, and the legalization of drugs. Lafollette injects reasoned arguments into the debate. It is the measure of harm and the intent of the action or behavior that must be considered. Given this elucidation, the potential for harm regarding the ownership of guns outweighs the expectations of autonomy first espoused by Mills.
References
- Hart, H.L.A. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford Clarendon Press, (1994), p. 110.
- Hilgendorf, Eric. “Morality and English Law.” University of Wurzburg. Web.
- Kipnis, Kenneth. Philosophical Issues in Law. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall. 1977, p. 44.
- Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty. New York: John B. Alden, (1885), p. 9.
- “Statistics: Gun Violence in Our Communities.” National Health Administration Health Information Network. (2005) Web.
- Lafollette, Hugh. Ethics in Practice: An Anthology. (Blackwell Philosophy Anthologies) Wiley-Blackwell. New York: Oxford University Press, 29, 2006.