By Nathaniel Counts
In On Liberty, John Stuart Mill asserted that “[t]he 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.” This has since become known as the harm principle and is foundational for much of American political discourse, especially for libertarianism and civil rights. At the time of Mills’ writing, On Liberty having been published in 1859, this logic could protect a lot of conduct that involved consenting adults or did not appear to directly impact others. If the harm principle was controlling, we could never have a soda ban. Today however, with our advances in social science, clear lines of harm and no harm have become fuzzy.
Few people buy cigarettes in a vacuum. Someone offers you cigarettes or you see other people smoking and then you buy cigarettes. This phenomenon, in which we make decisions based on the decisions of others in relationship to our esteem for them (if we see someone we respect smoking, we will be more likely to smoke; if we see someone we do not respect smoking, we will be less likely to smoke) is called social signaling (The Origin, Development, and Regulation of Norms is a great article on a related topic, the generation of norms, which explains this phenomenon quite well).
You must be logged in to post a comment.