Answer:
The harm principle states that the only actions that can be prevented are ones that create harm. In other words, a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others.
If a person’s actions only affect himself, then society, which includes the government, should not be able to stop a person from doing what he wants. This even includes actions that a person may do that would harm the person himself.
There are many actions which effects only the agent ‘directly and in the first instance’. They may still affect other people, but if they do so, they will affect other people ‘through’ the agent as all people are interconnected and no human being live in isolation.
Thus according to Mill interference is allowed:
– First, if by harming themselves, someone harms other people by violating their rights, then we can interfere with their actions on this ground. For example, if through being unable to control their spending, someone becomes unable to pay their debts or unable to support their children, then we can condemn and punish them.
– Second, a person’s specific duties can change self-regarding actions into ones regulated by the Harm Principle. If a doctor or policeman got drunk while on duty, they may be punished, because they have a duty to the public to be capable of doing their job during that time.
We have special obligations to our family’s happiness as a result of the nature of the family bond. If the harm that the person does to themselves ‘causes grief to his family’, then we can reproach him for not taking their interests and feelings into proper consideration. We may interfere with behaviour that hurts other people’s feelings. But other people’s feelings only count in the context of what we think morality requires of us in relation to our families.
MOJO9615J00A46183569
The first two parts of the questions are discussed in apt manner.
Balance is good in those parts.
But discussion regarding family needs better points and examples.
The theme of that part, around which your major arguments will revolve, should be:
We have special obligations to our family’s happiness as a result of the nature of the family bond. If the harm that the person does to themselves ‘causes grief to his family’, then we can reproach him for not taking their interests and feelings into proper consideration. We may interfere with behaviour that hurts other people’s feelings. But other people’s feelings only count in the context of what we think morality requires of us in relation to our families.
Answers are in this link
https://photos.app.goo.gl/GVTJ94fYiTEZ2PS19
Not checked
Ans
Good answer.
You have covered all the three elements of the questions in excellent manner.
The discussion and content are good.
More examples can be given in the 2nd part of the answer.
Apart from that, nothing wrong in the answer.
Decent attempt
Please Review
Good Intro.
Avoid demarcating points like pros and cons or merits and demerits in that manner of bracketing. It is not a proper way of presenting points.
Directions of the discussion in the three parts are good but examples are needed in middle part.
You can quote the examples given in the model answer.
Answer ends abruptly without a conclusion. Dont do it.
Ans
Good intro.
In the example where you mentioned drugs, alcohol and gambling, add that while its his/her prerogative to indulge in these vices, but it will indirectly harm his family and relatives who are dependent on him. he might go bankrupt, thus harming the well being of people close to him.
More examples are needed in this middle path.
Discussion regarding family needs better points and examples.
Examples like triple talaq are not apt because in that method the husband is already harming the other person and that is not an individual liberty but something concerning atleast two individuals. So discussion on this part should focus on “harm principle” and not too much on legality or polity.
The theme of that part, around which your major arguments will revolve, should be:
We have special obligations to our family’s happiness as a result of the nature of the family bond. If the harm that the person does to themselves ‘causes grief to his family’, then we can reproach him for not taking their interests and feelings into proper consideration. We may interfere with behaviour that hurts other people’s feelings. But other people’s feelings only count in the context of what we think morality requires of us in relation to our families.
MOJO9616700A12539386
Sir please review my answer