Everyday Ethics

In the previous article, we discussed the core principles of political liberalism, with the goal of using this framework to consider a variety of issues in applied moral problems.  But before we complete this task, there is another essential component of political liberalism that we ought to discuss.  The basis from which any act can be banned under political liberalism is the harm principle.  Liberalism is committed to the promotion of liberty, and the only justification for prohibiting certain actions is that allowing you to engage in them will infringe upon the liberty of someone else.

The harm principle is the claim that an action can only be banned if it causes harm to someone.  Note that the harm principle does not say that if an action is harmful, it must be banned.  Rather, it says that harmful actions are the only ones that can be banned.  There are a number of actions that are clearly harmful, but that many liberals argue ought to be allowed, and for strictly liberal reasons.  The harm principle simply sets a minimal standard for what sorts of actions a liberal can justifiably prohibit.

The harm principle has many sources, one of which is the utilitarianism of John Stuart Mill.  As a utilitarian, Mill held that right actions were whichever ones would bring about the most good in a given situation.  From this moral viewpoint, it is easy to see why Mill would sign onto something like the harm principle.  Harming others rarely promotes the most good, and the prevention of harm is the promotion of good in many cases.  One need not be a utilitarian in order to be a political liberal, but it is helpful to understand the philosophical roots of one of the main tenets of this principle.

There is one further point that we ought to make regarding the harm principle.  There are some moral philosophers, such as Bentham and Singer, who think the harm principle is the only principle we need in order to make good moral choices.  When something does more harm than good, we ought to disallow it; when it brings about more good than harm, it is permissible.  Most of us don’t think that this is right, since there are easily imaginable instances where a particular action seems clearly wrong, even though it would do more good than harm.  The point for our purposes is that the harm principle need not be the only moral principle that a political liberal cares about, even though some have claimed that it is all we really need.

The stage is now set for consideration of a variety of challenging contemporary moral problems currently facing U.S. society.  We will consider each of these problems in light of the values of political liberalism, as well as the harm principle.  We will quickly see that the balancing act between all of these is a precarious one.  We might also realize the extent to which we are willing to break from our core values in order to do what we believe to be right.  In the end, we will have a clearer picture of the foundations of many of our legal prohibitions and allowances, as well as the limitations of our own decision-making framework.

About the Author

Elijah Weber is a graduate student at Bowling Green State University. He holds a Master's degree in philosophy from Colorado State University, and Bachelor’s degrees in sociology and philosophy from Chapman Univerity. He currently lives in Bowling Green, Ohio with his wife Laura, his newborn son Brandon, and his feline life-partner Monte.