Does Mill’s liberty principle provide a satisfactory criterion by which to judge whether interference in another person’s actions is justifiable?
Introduction
Be clear- I agree!
Mill’s principle is not absolute
The appeal to liberty as default condition is strongly intuitive
The ‘harm’ qualification is useful and clear
But!
Problems posed by utilitarianism (not compatible with ‘rights’)
How to (and who) discerns ‘good’
Examples of where utilitarianism is useful (and where it isn’t)
Conclusion
things that might have been otherwise 