For what reasons may society limit individual liberty? What are the legitimate roles of government? When is legal coercion permissible? For what purposes may law be made?

• There are four principles (Harm, paternalism, moralism, offense)
  • More than one can apply to the same case
  • Most everyone accepts the harm principle and finds the others more controversial So to ban something people try to argue that it causes harm (even when this is not likely)
    
• Harm principle: To prevent harm to others

• John Stuart Mill's statement of harm principle in On Liberty (1859):



• "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good is not a sufficient warrant (Mill here rejects paternalism). He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because . . . in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise or even right (Mill here rejects moralism)."



• Paternalism principle (legal paternalism): To prevent harm to self (or to make you do what is good for you)
• E.g., Motorcycle helmets, suicide prohibition, use of heroine, becoming a second wife
• Pro: State often knows better than you do what is good for you; can't allow bodily dismemberment or selling oneself into slavery
• Con: State should not treat competent adults like children; how prevent slippery slope into banning whiskey, cigarettes, fried foods, rock climbing?
• Feinberg: Accepts "weak paternalism:"
• Preventing self harm is only permissible if the behavior is "substantially non-voluntary"
• And thus there really is no violation of autonomy
• Behavior is non-voluntary if it is due to misinformation, neurosis, clouded judgment, or involves risk so unreasonable that one can presume behavior is non-voluntary
  • Consider a person about to saw off her own arm
• Here one stops the person until voluntariness is shown
  • Goal is not to judge the wisdom/worthwhileness of the person's activity, but to determine if it is voluntary.



• Moralism principle (legal moralism): To prevent immoral behavior (to prevent harmless immoralities, "victimless crimes" in private by consenting adults)

• J.F. Stephen: "There are acts of wickedness so gross and outrageous that [protection of others apart), they must be prevented"
• E.g., gambling, sodomy & "sex offenses," flag desecration, mistreating corpses, kiddy porn
• For: To punish sin, make people moral, make the universe a better place (retributivism?)
• Against: Invasion of privacy, threat of tyranny of majority
• Feinberg: Opposes moralism; free floating evils count, but not enough to outweigh value of autonomy



• Offense principle: To prevent offense to others (offense that is not harmful)
• E.g., obscenity (literature, curses), loud noises, bad smells, public nudity/sex
• Against: Subjective relativity of offense; due to irrational prejudices, people offended by many perfectly innocent and socially harmless activities (e.g. dress style, breast feeding in public, gays kissing)
• For: Some things are such a nuisance, so disgusting, acutely embarrassing must be banned (sexual techniques billboards, nudity on bus, obscenity over loudspeakers)
• Feinberg: Accepts limited offense principle if banned activities are (1) universally offensive (not just offensive to prevailing community standards) and (2) are not reasonably avoidable