THEORIES ON LIBERTY

Our main discussion focuses on questions of

– Should law enforce morality

Bigamy
( wearing what one wants ,when and how examples include mini skirts, biquene

Prostitution or living off the earnings of prostitute Eg .Soliciting, pimping

Gambling

Pornography

Abortion

Taking of hard Drugs

Refusing to take medical treatment

Size Zero , cloning

Homicide killing of human being ,Suicide killing of one self.

Euthanasia ( mercy killing- suffering and killing him)

Wearing of seat belt and cash helmet

Choosing your sexual identity

Copulating with a unconscious woman

Bestialism ( sex with an animal )

Breast-in-plant

Consensual intercourse in private ( sexual gratification)

Question
Why should such act mentioned above be criminalized

What harm does it cause to others

How do you prove the harm ( from whose perspective do we measure this harm) the one enjoy it
or the one standing outside

Cases
R v. Donovan (1934 0 2 K.B

R v. Pike (1961) Crim LR 114

R v. Brown (1994) 1 A. C212

Those saying the state should intervene what are their grounds

Grounds for State intervention of moral Conduct

– it amount to cultural pollution Eg Gay
– Changing public moral standard
– Moral decadence
– Public obscenity
– Corruption of the mind

Those against the state intervention / non intervention.

We look at a theory by John Stuart Mill. This is the harm principle or theory

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized
community against his will is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral is
not a sufficient warrant'.

Sum it is not right to use power over another member in a civilized state with the intention that
they promoting his own good unless the conduct we are restrain cause harm to others.

John Stuart Mill divides human conduct into

– self regarding
– Self other.

It his life and choice.

. In short John and advocate of the of the harm principle are opposed to sanction of self
regarding actions whether emanating from the law or from other social institutions.
. Legal restraint/ coercion is justified if it is exercised to prevent harm to others .Thus If what
you do harms no one but yourself, not only should you not be subject to legal restraint, but
you ought not to lose your place in an institution,higher education, job, etc
What they’re saying is that there are means of applying sanctions to you
legal intervention ('harm to others')- the basis for which legal coercion is justified.

That is to say, private realm and public realm should be distinguished.

James Fitzjames Stephen

He attacks John Stuart Mill harm principle.

And according to him the prevention of immorality is a proper end in itself and justifies action by
the state. ( actions of interference)
The the law's duty to enforce is to be determined by reference to the unanimous opinion of
society( if majority in society says no to lesbian the law should come in to enforce these it.( law
should be applied in morality)

His view is in line with Plato, Aristotle and Aquinas.