Harm Principle

To decide which constraints are justified, we need to address the limits, the authority, and the consequences of any restriction — an issue John Stuart Mill addressed in his essay On Liberty through what political theory calls the 'harm principle'. Mill's own statement of it is that '...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 civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.'

Mill draws an important distinction here between 'self-regarding' actions — those with consequences only for the person doing them — and 'other-regarding' actions, whose consequences also fall on other people. With respect to purely self-regarding choices, he argues, the state or any other external authority has no business interfering: put simply, 'that's my business, I'll do what I like,' or 'how does it concern you, if it doesn't affect you?' But where an action's consequences cause harm to others, there is a real case for external interference, since the state can then step in to protect people from being harmed by someone else's actions.

Even so, because freedom is so central to a dignified human life, Mill insists it should be constrained only in special circumstances — the harm caused must be genuinely serious. For minor harm, he recommends only social disapproval, not the force of law. Playing loud music in an apartment building, for instance, should draw only the disapproval of neighbours — not the police — even though it does cause real harm, by stopping others from talking, sleeping or listening to their own music; this is minor harm, a case for social pressure, not legal punishment.

A good way to test how this reasoning actually applies is the question of dress. If choosing what to wear is itself an expression of freedom, how should we judge restrictions such as the compulsory 'Mao suits' of Communist China (justified as an expression of equality), the fatwa issued against tennis player Sania Mirza over her style of dress, the rule that requires cricketers to wear white in a Test match, or the requirement that students wear a school uniform? Is such a restriction justified in every case, or only in some? Who actually has the authority to impose it — should a religious leader, the state, a sporting body like the ICC, or a school, get to decide? Is the restriction excessive, and does it leave people enough other ways to express themselves? And what follows if such impositions are simply accepted — would society genuinely become more 'equal', or would it instead take away a real form of self-expression, including, for instance, sportswomen who need particular clothing to compete effectively? …