Meu objetivo, neste trabalho, é investigar a compatibilidade das teses utilitaristas e liberais de John Stuart Mill. Apresentarei, inicialmente, os principais críticos da filosofia moral e política de Mill, para os quais o discípulo de Bentham teria abandonado o utilitarismo ou, ainda, não esclarecido suficientemente seu princípio da liberdade, o que o tornaria um pensador assistemático e inconsistente. Minha tese é contrária a tais interpretações, uma vez que sustenta ser Mill consistente. Em seguida, defenderei uma interpretação do princípio da liberdade (...) e da individualidade, procurando demonstrar que seu utilitarismo é compatível com seu liberalismo. (shrink)

Mill’s harm principle is commonly supposed to rest on a distinction between self-regarding conduct, which is not liable to interference, and other-regarding conduct, which is. As critics have noted, this distinction is difficult to draw. Furthermore, some of Mill’s own applications of the principle, such as his forbidding of slavery contracts, do not appear to fit with it. This article proposes that the self-regarding/other-regarding distinction is not in fact fundamental to Mill’s harm principle. The sphere of protected liberty includes not (...) only self-regarding conduct, but also actions that affect only consenting others. On the other hand, the occasional permissibility of interfering with self-regarding conduct can plausibly be explained by reference to the agent’s consent. Thus, the more important distinction appears to be that between consensual and non-consensual harm, rather than that between the self-regarding and non-self-regarding action. That is, interference can be justified in order to prevent non-consensual harms, but not to prevent consensual harms. It is argued that the harm principle, thus reformulated, both captures Mill’s intentions and is a substantively plausible position. (shrink)

This article discusses John Stuart Mill's voluntary slavery argument in On Liberty. The author shows that standard interpretations of the argument rely on the assumption that part of Mill's objection to voluntary slavery is the permanent nature of the decision. However, in correspondence, Mill also objects to voluntary ‘coolie’ labour contracts, which he regards as a form of slavery. This produces difficulties for standard interpretations of the voluntary slavery argument. Finally, the author provides a revised interpretation of Mill's argument to (...) solve this problem. (shrink)