The question of whether people can be allowed to do whatever they please if it does not harm others has attracted a lot of debate. To answer the question, it is crucial to specify what societies or governments deem harmful. Several philosophers such as John Stuart Mill have developed theories and principles that shun the society from interfering with people’s actions that are not intended to harm others.
To answer the question, this paper bases its argument’s on Mill’s harm principle. However, the goal is to show that individuals do not have the right to do whatever they deem right even if it does not interfere with other people’s peace of mind.
The above question paves a way to the subject of freedom. Freedom refers to a situation where individuals are at liberty to decide on what to do or not to do. According to them, they are right to make any choice of actions. It is crucial to analyze what freedom entails using a real-life situation.
For instance, in some countries such as India, Canada, and Vegas, prostitution is legal. Hence, people have been granted the freedom to engage in commercialized sexual relations. The implication here is that a married couple is free to interact sexually with other people as he or she wishes. One might wonder whether this scenario is morally right, despite the liberty that has been granted to people who uphold this practice.
The practice attracts incurable diseases, deaths, and divorce cases among others. Moreover, harmful drugs such as marijuana have been legalized in Florida. This drug has the capacity to attract lung problems, heart diseases, and weak immunity systems. Do they qualify as harmful practices? Do they affect the individual only?
The harm principle holds that individuals are at liberty to participate in any activity that does not disadvantage third parties. According to the principle, it does not matter what an individual decides to do with him or herself. A third party denotes the community or the government.
Hence, the principle does not grant the community or the administration the right to intervene when it comes to an individual’s actions. However, one might ask, is it right to let a person engage in activities that are detrimental to him or herself? Do people who decide to take away their lives harm themselves only? Are there any people who are completely independent of others?
Based on the above questions, it is clear that Mill’s principle does not measure up to the society or government’s expectations. Upon focusing on the afore-given scenario of prostitution and drug abuse, it is clear that people should not be allowed to do whatever they deem right in the name of not hurting others.
It is crucial to point that any harmful action that a person chooses to do such as suicide, prostitution, or abusing of drugs not only hurts him or her, but also the society and the government. Every individual has a unique role to play in the society. Hence, letting a person abuse drugs that will lead to his or her death will be a loss to the society.
In conclusion, although there has been a debate on whether people should do what they want if it does not disadvantage other people, the paper has revealed the underlying problems once such freedom is granted. Mill’s harm principle should be detailed such that it only grants people the liberty to engage in any activity if the action does measures up to society and government’s expectations and standards.