Liberty-Limiting Principles
Contact: Dr. Jan Garrett
Minor revision January 23, 2008 Source for these ideas: Thomas Mappes and Jane Zembaty, eds., 2002. Social Ethics: Morality and Public Policy. McGraw-Hill, 209-210. Mappes and Zembaty base their discussion on Joel Feinberg, Social Philosophy (Prentice-Hall, 1973), chapter 2.
These four principles have been advanced, at various times, as justifications for legal restrictions on the liberty of individual adults. Not all of them are accepted by representatives of the various ethical theories.*
The harm principle--Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent harm to others.This principle is most widely accepted. John Stuart Mill holds that only the harm principle can justify the limitation of liberty.The principle of legal paternalism--Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent harm to self.J. S. Mill clearly rejects this principle as a basis for limiting liberty.The principle of legal moralism--Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent immoral behavior.Legal moralism is usually invoked only what would be prohibited is so-called victimless crimes. (If there were victims, the harm or legal paternalist principles might apply.)When legal moralism is invoked, "community standards"--perhaps the opinion of the majority in a particular community--are usually used to determine what is moral and what is immoral. J. S. Mill clearly rejects use of this principle as a basis for limiting liberty. In his view, to do so would amount to "tyranny of the majority."
The offense principle--Individual liberty is justifiably limited to prevent offense to others.The older arguments for censorship of pornography on the basis of "obscenity" seem to rest upon the legal moralism and offense principles.
* The statement of the four principles is directly cited from Mappes and Zembaty 2002, 209. I have added the use of bold font for their names.