Commentary on John Stuart Mill, Chapter IV

Is there any distinction between self-regarding acts and other-regarding acts under Harm Principle?              

Are these distinctions clear?

In Chapter #4, Mill attempts to make Harm principle clear. It seems clear to Mill that there are self-regarding acts and other-regarding acts. Self-regarding acts are usually “beyond morality” and should affect other people’s feelings. Other people may feel intense dislike, but this does not amount to harm to them. Harm is different from mere dislike. Other-regarding acts directly harm others. Mill believes that all individuals have a duty to obey the other-regarding rules, “every one who receives the protection of society owes a return for the benefit, and the fact of living in society renders it indispensable that each should be bound to observe a certain line of conduct towards the rest.” (73) Under the harm principle, does Mill give us the distinction or distinctions between self-regarding acts and other-regarding acts?

Mill connects Harm principle with social duty, an act. As long as an individual action does not amount to or link to a duty, this is a self-regarding act. If an act does involve a duty, it is considered other-regarding acts. Mill uses Harm principle is slightly different from Premise #1, “Mill's idea on "Harm Principle" leads towards limiting liberty in order to avoid any harm to society in any way.” The claim of Premise #1 is somewhat stronger than Mill’s. For instance, if a drunkard is too addicted to alcohol, he can drink himself to death—this is a self-regarding act. He has done nothing wrong so that the government should let him drink to death if it is his choice to live this way, as long as he does not have any dependent. If a society has laws that force an individual to take care of his/herself, then he/she has a legal duty to him/herself to take care of his/her own health. Otherwise, he/she can do what he/she pleases. If harming oneself is considered harming a society because an individual is a member of the society, then he has the duty to look after his own health. Mill does not take this stand. Thus, the phrase to “avoid any harm to a society in any way” is somewhat a stronger claim than Mill’s. 

   

Mill gives us the distinction between self-regarding act and other-regarding act and how Harm principle plays a role in it. Mill says that if a person’s self-injurious act causes himself and others harm, it is other-regarding act. If a self-regarding act of an individual is connected to a violation of another person’s legal right and two of them are not separable, then the self-regarding act becomes other-regarding act. For example, a person has a duty to pay his annual tax. If he fails, he owes his legal duty to pay. A drunkard soldier, because of his habit, cannot serve while it is his duty to serve. When self-regarding act and other-regarding act join as one, “the case is taken out of the province of liberty, and placed in that of morality and law” Mill asserts. Here, a private act becomes a social act. Mill gives us another example. He says, “the act of drinking fermented liquors’ is self-regarding, whereas selling fermented liquors…is trading, and trading is a social act. (87) Once an act becomes social, it is punishable. Thus, social acts are other-regarding acts.

Religious intolerance blurs and undermines the distinction between self-regarding act and other-regarding act. Harm principle, for Muslims, does not work this way, but it works in a paternalistic way. Muslims do not like the idea of eating pork and regard the meat as unclean, and ban pork consumption in their countries. Under the Harm principle, as long as you do not harm anyone, you can do what you please. However, Muslim countries act like a father-figure and tell their citizens what they should eat: the individual choice is taken away by these governments. Even though eating pork is a personal choice, it is a paternalistic choice if you are living in these countries. Thus, eating pork becomes neither self-regarding act nor other-regarding, but it is a paternalistic act: it is for your own good. Don’t eat it. We make the choice for you.

With Premise #4, it seems like it is used to support the conclusion, but it is not that straight forward after all. 

The distinction between self-regarding acts and other-regarding acts under Harm principle is clear except in religious case. With all other three premises, they seem to go along with the conclusion. But with premises #1 and #2, they seem to go against it. The conclusion is somewhat broad. The conclusion might be more focus if you only focus on Harm principle alone.