What is harm?

In the book "on freedom", Mill said, "The only purpose that power can legitimately be exercised against any member of a civilized community is to prevent harm to others, It is contrary to "It argues and discusses. Society has the right to use the law to regulate "through clear legal provisions or acquiescence to understand the damage to each other's interests or the particular interests that should be regarded as rights" (chapter 4 , Chapter 73). Society can use public opinion to monitor "actions that may harm others, or that wish to properly consider their welfare without violating the rights to constitute rights" ( Chapter 4, Chapter 73).

The principle of harm is the core of the principle of free time. Nigel Warburton said that Muller does not seem to know what is wrong. In the early days of the book, he insisted that even if it simply violated it will not be a harm. Later, he wrote that a personally permitted harmless action deserves a public prohibition. This is contradicted with his previous statement that only sin does not need to be banned, as the only harm caused by private innocent public actions is presumed to be that it is uncomfortable It seems to be.

The principle of Muller's harm is quite different from the principle of crime. The basis of the comparison is that, in some cases, psychological or social harm may be comparable to physical harm. The difference is based on the assumption that crime can cause discomfort, but it does not necessarily cause harm. In case of mistakes or damage, the crime is only in accordance with the principle of injury. According to the principle of injury, it is only a harmful act that can be prevented. In other words, he can do whatever he wishes as long as his behavior does not hurt others. If a person's action only affects oneself, the society including the government should not prevent him from doing what he wants. This includes even the actions people may do to hurt themselves.

The core of the discussion is somewhat unresolved, but it is the definition of harm. The central theme detailed by the people who oppose the aid of death is a long-lasting motto in history: "Do not hurt" But what is harm? Do not you want to get injured for the patient receiving treatment? Excessive useless procedures are harmful? Is death away from where you want to avoid hurting? And perhaps most important is that people do not want to die without hurting. When the ancient Greeks made the word "euthanasia" they tried to answer the question we are still trying to solve: what is good death? This may be the most important and difficult problem we face; after all, how is the single biggest loss in life good? It seems that an organizational machine is on the market, and the patient fights violently to experience it in a reasonably acceptable way, not to prevent death.