Switch to: References

Citations of:

Mill on Mental Health Acts

Utilitas 28 (1):1-18 (2016)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. A Millian Case for Censoring Vaccine Misinformation.Ben Saunders - 2023 - Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 20 (1):115-124.
    The spread of vaccine misinformation may contribute to vaccine refusal/hesitancy and consequent harms. Nonetheless, censorship is often rejected on the grounds of free expression. This article examines John Stuart Mill’s influential defence of free expression but finds that his arguments for freedom apply only to normal, reasonably favourable circumstances. In other cases, it may be permissible to restrict freedom, including freedom of speech. Thus, while Mill would ordinarily defend the right to express false views, such as that vaccines cause autism, (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)The Harm Principle and the Nature of Harm.Anna Folland - 2021 - Utilitas:1-15.
    This article defends the Harm Principle, commonly attributed to John Stuart Mill, against recent criticism. Some philosophers think that this principle should be rejected, because of severe difficulties with finding an account of harm to plug into it. I examine the criticism and find it unforceful. Finally, I identify a faulty assumption behind this type of criticism, namely that the Harm Principle is plausible only if there is a full-blown, and problem-free, account of harm, which proponents of the principle can (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • (1 other version)The Harm Principle and the Nature of Harm.Anna Folland - 2022 - Utilitas 34 (2):139-153.
    This article defends the Harm Principle, commonly attributed to John Stuart Mill, against recent criticism. Some philosophers think that this principle should be rejected, because of severe difficulties with finding an account of harm to plug into it. I examine the criticism and find it unforceful. Finally, I identify a faulty assumption behind this type of criticism, namely that the Harm Principle is plausible only if there is a full-blown, and problem-free, account of harm, which proponents of the principle can (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation