
Ethics Explainer: The Harm Principle
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
BY The Ethics Centre 27 OCT 2016
The harm principle says people should be free to act however they wish unless their actions cause harm to somebody else.
The principle is a central tenet of the political philosophy known as liberalism and was first proposed by English philosopher John Stuart Mill.
The harm principle is not designed to guide the actions of individuals but to restrict the scope of criminal law and government restrictions of personal liberty.
For Mill – and the many politicians, philosophers and legal theorists who have agreed with him – social disapproval or dislike (“mere offence”) for a person’s actions isn’t enough to justify intervention by government unless they actually harm or pose a significant threat to someone.
The phrase “Your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins” captures the general sentiment of the principle, which is why it’s usually linked to the idea of “negative rights”. These are demands someone not do something to you. For example, we have a negative right to not be assaulted.
On the other hand, “positive rights” demand that others do certain things for us, like provide healthcare or treat us with basic respect. For this reason, the principle is often used in political debates to discuss the limitations of state power.
There’s no issue with actions that are harmful to the individual themselves. If you want to smoke, drink, or use drugs to excess, you should be free to do so. But if you get behind the wheel of a car while under the influence, pass second-hand smoke onto other people, or become violent on certain drugs, then there’s good reason for the government to get involved.
Attempting to define harm
The sticking point comes in trying to define what counts as harmful. Although it might seem obvious, it’s actually not that easy. For example, if you benefit by winning a promotion at work while other applicants lose out, does this count as being harmful to them?
Mill would argue no. He defines harms as wrongful setbacks to interests to which people have rights. He would argue you wouldn’t be harming anyone by winning a promotion because although their interests are set back, no particular person has a right to a promotion. If it’s earned on merit, then it’s fair. “May the best person win”, so to say.
A more difficult category concerns harmful speech. For Mill, you do not have the right to incite violence – this is obviously harmful as it physically hurts and injures. However, he says you do have the right to offend other people – having your feelings hurt doesn’t count as harm.
Recent debates have questioned this and claim that certain kinds of speech can be as damaging psychologically as a physical attack – either because they’re personally insulting or because they entrench established power dynamics and oppress minorities.
Importantly, Mill believed the harm principle only applied to people who are able to exercise their freedom responsibly. For instance, paternalism over children was acceptable since children are not fully capable of responsibly exercising freedom, but paternalism over fully autonomous adults was not.
Unfortunately, he also thought these measures were appropriate to use against “barbarians”, by which he meant non-Europeans in British colonies like India.
This highlights an important point about the harm principle: the basis for determining who is worthy or capable of exercising their freedom can be subject to personal, cultural or political bias. When making decisions about rights and responsibilities, we should be ever careful about the potential biases that inform who or what we apply them to.
Ethics in your inbox.
Get the latest inspiration, intelligence, events & more.
By signing up you agree to our privacy policy
MOST POPULAR
ArticleLifestyle + Health
Vaccines: compulsory or conditional?
ArticleLaw + Human Rights
He said, she said: Investigating the Christian Porter Case
ArticleBeing Human
Free speech has failed us
ArticleBig Thinkers + Explainers
Ethics Explainer: Ethics, morality & law

BY The Ethics Centre
The Ethics Centre is a not-for-profit organisation developing innovative programs, services and experiences, designed to bring ethics to the centre of professional and personal life.
4 Comments
Feinberg qualifies interests as (something like) legitimate interests. Owning a slave is an interest of the slaveowners, but freeing the slave, in (virtually) what ever manner it is done, is not a setback which counts as harmful. I’m not sure you are clear on this, but I’m pleased to see you mention Feinberg here – I discuss Feinberg and the Harm Principle in the first chapter of my book The Morality of Weapons Research (Springer Briefs in Ethics, 2019) which might be of interest. And while I am here, so to speak, why not have an explainer on the morality of weapons research/design? I’ll do it for you if you like
ReplyWhen an action of one places an individual or a community in harms way. Harms way could be to the detriment of health, wealth, promotion, physical and mental wellbeing.
examples include bullying in the workplace
knowingly spreading a communicable deadly disease
domestic violence
violence, abandonment and physical/sexual abuse to a family member, or child
[…] to think the world would be in a better place, mostly, if people followed the golden rule and the harm principle. However, it may not be this simple to condense so much what life has to offer into two moral […]
ReplyIt is not practical to regard distress as “harm”. (Otherwise, I would have a claim against a great many women who had sex with other men and not me …) Furthermore, it takes two to disagree, and that fact that one person may be very distressed by disagreement while another is not (for example, a devout Catholic being distressed by an atheist) cannot be held to justify calling down the might power of the state against the person who is less distressed, as the standard invoked would be arbitrary and idiosyncratic.
Reply
Join the conversation
How do you determine what is harmful to another?