Sunday, September 20, 2009

The tyranny of the harm principle

So I and possibly half a dozen other people voted against the ban on airbrushing, which was not surprising given the one-sided nature of the debate, and the near-universal, it seems, misunderstanding of JS Mill's harm principle. With hindsight I should have tried to speak myself.

The harm principle is a prohibition on banning things that don't cause any harm to others. It is not a sufficient justification for banning anything. Some bans are worse than the harms they would prevent. And many bans are wrong because they are ineffective at preventing the harms they are intended to prevent.

The problem is that it can be difficult to be seen to agree completely that a cultural meme like body fascism is a big problem causing considerable harm to many people, while at the same time rejecting a particular social engineering solution to it. Speaker after speaker spoke of the harm done by unrealistic expectations of plastic beauty, as if this were the point of dispute.

Sure, there are those - the libertarians - who would interpret harm in the narrowest possible way - the initiation of force - in order to delegitimise almost every law. At the other extreme communists might argue that competition causes harm - which it does to those who lose - and reject economic liberalism. Both may claim, wrongly, to be good Millians.

The error both are making is in looking for a rules-based formula for when something ought to be banned or not, and then arguing over the interpretation of the rules. And if you misunderstand the harm principle as saying what must be banned, rather than what must not be banned, it is understandable that you might want to adopt a narrow concept of harm, to minimise the assault on liberty.

I suggest that the harm principle should be seen in the context of Mill's utilitarianism. Specifically, that goods or ills have to be weighed up against each other. Some precious liberty against some moderate harm? It's a judgement call, and the answer is often a boring compromise: 70mph; no parking between 9am and 6pm; hotels must have fire alarms...

And the most useful liberties - such as the freedom to compete in business - are thus justified in spite of the legions of bankrupted suicidal failures.

So the communist has a broad concept of harm and prohibits a great deal. The libertarian has a narrow concept of harm and prohibits little. I agree with the broad concept of harm, but I would still prohibit only a little, understanding that the harm principle does not demand a prohibition.

So back to the airbrush ban. I suggest that the correct and healthy attitude to have towards advertising, celebrity culture and so on is a skeptical one. What you are seeing is not real. The danger is that an airbrush ban might make you think it is real, compounding the negative impact of the image. I don't see a prohibition intended to increase the confidence you might have in the fidelity of body fascistic images in the media as worth any loss of liberty.

Meanwhile I am looking forward to the men's policy paper. I continually find my self-esteem undermined by the portrayal in the media of men who are richer and more powerful than I am. I worry about all the boys facing these impossible comparisons. Something must be done.

11 comments:

neil craig said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Otten said...

Neil, I honestly wasn't required to support any genocide when joining the party.

neil craig said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Otten said...

Neil, I'm not aware of any such prima facie case, and I'm not going to start accusing my colleagues of live human dissection because they would think I had gone mad.

It is not at all clear to me why you believe any of these accusations yourself, or what makes them specific to the Liberal Democrats, as opposed to, say, the army or the government.

Bishop Hill said...

"If any one does an act hurtful to others, there is a prima facie case for punishing him, by law, or, where legal penalties are not safely applicable, by general disapprobation."

Even if one accepts that one can cause harm to others by airbrushing a photo, I would have said that freedom of speech was one of those areas where legal penalties were not safely applicable, wouldn't you?

Joe Otten said...

Yes, quite.

neil craig said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Otten said...

Neil, I recall the public debate at the time was over whether to intervene to prevent a genocide in Kosovo. Quite possibly we were misled. I myself was skeptical, now lets see if I get expelled from the party for it.

In any case it is not at all clear to me why you believe your more colourful accusations, or why you blame the present leadership of the lib dems, rather than the government responsible for that bombing.

neil craig said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Otten said...

Neil, can you give a reference for this enthusiastic support for genocide of which you speak?

Joe Otten said...

Neil, I have been advised that it is best to delete your comments as they are defamatory.

If you wish to post an unembellished link to the same points on your own blog, I will let that stand. But not on any other post unless it is on-topic and not spammed.