Abstract
The traditional objection to Mill's principle governing the interference of state and society in the lives of individuals is that it excludes interference only in the case of actions that harm nobody at all. Interpretations of Mill's essay which escape this objection have been suggested by J. C. Rees and Richard Wollheim. In one case Mill is said to have been concerned with harm to established interests, in the other with harm which arises by way of the beliefs of those injured. The author of the present article proposes an alternative interpretation which better represents Mill's intention and escapes objections which may be raised against the principles expounded by Rees and Wollheim. Once again, however, Mill's principle emerges as seriously flawed.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
