Mill, Libertarianism, David Lyons and the Practical Limits of Moral and Political Principles

John Stuart Mill is sometimes charged with being the original author of libertarianism because his defense of it argued that the only limit on liberty should be the restriction of harm to others. As is the case with so many other past philosophers, what appeals as self-evident principle turns out all too often on wider practical application to produce skewed results not intended (or foreseen) by its author(s).

For example we are today watching the wrenching case of Terri Schiavo. What principle should determine the right thing to do with a person so terribly brain damaged as to be by all appearances unable to think or act? One's instincts are to try to preserve such a person in hopes that somehow she might be restored to personhood or at least some minimal level of active consciousness. Such after 15 years, however, does not seem to be likely with Terri who has only been kept alive these many years by the wonders of modern medicine -- antibiotics, new methods of feeding and cleansing, and the labors of many caring health workers -- 12/365. The question then arises as to whether all human life should be sustained at great cost to someone -- either families or the public expenditures for Medicaid and/or legal costs attendant thereupon? No neat and tidy principle alone answers the critical question at hand -- should Terri (or more accurately, her body) be allowed to die?

Similarly Mill's 'no harm' principal defense of liberty can be variously applied? Does it mean that one has a duty only not to harm others with no obligations to help those in need? As one studies Mill's life and career of service it would be hard to believe that he would be uncaring in the face of human need and/or injustice. As a young utilitarian he defended the rights of oppressed peoples and even in the context of his defense of liberty his examples sometimes war with his limiting principle as it is applied by the hard line libertarians who cite him as an authoritative source.

Interestingly for Brooklyn College students, one of our own distinguished philosophy graduates, David Lyons:

http://www.bu.edu/philo/faculty/lyons.html

in his writings has pointed out that some of Mill's examples along "good Samaritan" lines do war with the limitations of his no harm principle and raise the question as to whether Mill, himself, a century and a half later, would reject any community obligation to act through our state instrumentalities to help others at home or abroad or decline to render positive justice where it is due to those who have suffered the discrimination of racism, gender biases, unequal opportunities -- or who need public assistance in recovering from or living with life's inevitable misfortunes?

Perhaps the bottom line here is that our rules, principles, laws, policies must constantly be reexamined as we apply them to present realities and revised when necessary to do the right thing? Certainly this is one of the principal lessons that has emerged from our major American legal theories of the past century:

Pound's Sociological Jurisprudence:

http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/49/8/1099a

American Legal Realism's skepticism about legal rules and facts:

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/Legal_realism

Critical Jurisprudence's suspicions about current legal practices:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/critical_theory.html

and a host of variants along similar lines with links below:

http://gsulaw.gsu.edu/pwiseman/home_pages/Jurisprudence/readings.html
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]