Another contradiction is Mill’s assertion that the tendency of freedom of thought and discussion to beget truth means that freedom will have the best utilitarian consequences. This contention disagrees with the principle of utility because …show more content…
If for example, a large group of people decided they would pull out their own teeth without anaesthetic, the harm principle would say they should be allowed to do so. They are only hurting themselves, so it is society’s duty to respect their individual choices. However, it can be assumed that the action of pulling teeth would cause considerable physical pain for a large number of people and net very little pleasure. According to the utility principle, society would be justified in not permitting the action of self-harm, because it undermines the maximization of happiness for the greatest number of people. Here, the liberty principle and utility principles are …show more content…
He asserts that if anyone were to see the person, “and there were no time to warn him of his danger, they might seize him and turn him back, without any real infringement of his liberty” (796). Mill’s view of liberty is “doing what one desires” (796), and defends his argument by saying one could assume that the person crossing the bridge would not desire to fall into the river. However, it would be immoral under the liberty principle for society to limit the realization of an individual desire, in this case, the desire to cross the bridge. Mill is essentially proposing that one should discount the tangible desire to cross the bridge for the assumed desire of not falling into the river, showing bias for what he would consider a higher pleasure. This would be ignoring the principle of liberty in order to obtain utility, demonstrating again that liberty does not necessarily lead to