Law should only be enacted to prevent harm to others. Do you agree? Why or why not?
As J S Mill famously asserted, one of the main purposes of the law is to protect people from
harm. In fact, if the law did not exist to place some boundaries on human behaviour and
prohibit the transgression of other people’s rights, society would risk evolving into
anarchism. However, this essay argues that the law possesses mul ple purposes that go
beyond protec ng people from others- such as to protect people from themselves, to
promote good moral a tudes and fairness in society.
On the surface, many laws seek to regulate human behaviour by placing limits on how far
one individual can exert their own rights without invading someone else’s. This delicate
equilibrium between the priori sa on of di erent people’s rights is based on the principles
of individualism and autonomy, as everyone has an inherent, inalienable dignity and equal
status that should always be respected. For example, criminal law seeks to prevent
economic, social, poli cal, mental and physical harm being done to others through a variety
of crimes ranging from nancial fraud and defama on to rape and murder. In the same way,
other sectors of the legal system like family law and employment law a empt to solve issues
between families and the workplace respec vely that could cause harm to an individual.
Therefore, the law is crucial in se ng up the framework in which society operates so that
both individual rights and J S Mill’s Harm Principle are sa s ed.
Furthermore, while the law should be enacted to prevent harm being done to others, it is
also key in preven ng harm being done to people by themselves. This is exempli ed through
paternalis c legisla on like seatbelt laws, where people are obligated to do something
despite their autonomous free will to decide their ac ons for themselves. This is because
the law must strike a balance between respec ng individual rights and the ul mate bene t
of society- in this case, people would be be er o being forced to wear seatbelts as there
would be less mortality in car accidents. Addi onally, paternalis c legisla on should be
enacted to address behavioural market failures. Adam Smith was wrong to claim that in a
free market, people would choose the op on that would maximise their welfare; it has been
proven today that people are o en prone to human error and the tendency to overlook
their long-term bene t for short-term pleasures. Hence the law should act as an agent to
‘nudge’ people towards the op on that would most op mise their welfare, as in the
example of a sugar tax to tackle obesity levels.
On the other hand, the law should also seek to endorse certain moral a tudes and promote
the virtue of ci zens. Criminalising an ac on or a thing indirectly a aches a moral value to it,
thus promp ng people to avoid it because it is inherently unethical. This concep on of the
law as a guidebook of morality could lead to a more righteous society with less crime overall
as people would follow the ‘right thing to do’. Even so, some may argue that legisla ng
morality could risk evolving into coercion and authoritarianism through the crea on of an
Orwellian ‘1984’ world. Moreover, considering the prac cality of this proposal further, some
di cult philosophical ques ons start to arise: should the law base its moral values on those
of the majority, risking an enactment of J S Mill’s tyranny of the majority, or should it have
an established guidebook of ethical standpoints that are deemed ‘right’ regardless of the
As J S Mill famously asserted, one of the main purposes of the law is to protect people from
harm. In fact, if the law did not exist to place some boundaries on human behaviour and
prohibit the transgression of other people’s rights, society would risk evolving into
anarchism. However, this essay argues that the law possesses mul ple purposes that go
beyond protec ng people from others- such as to protect people from themselves, to
promote good moral a tudes and fairness in society.
On the surface, many laws seek to regulate human behaviour by placing limits on how far
one individual can exert their own rights without invading someone else’s. This delicate
equilibrium between the priori sa on of di erent people’s rights is based on the principles
of individualism and autonomy, as everyone has an inherent, inalienable dignity and equal
status that should always be respected. For example, criminal law seeks to prevent
economic, social, poli cal, mental and physical harm being done to others through a variety
of crimes ranging from nancial fraud and defama on to rape and murder. In the same way,
other sectors of the legal system like family law and employment law a empt to solve issues
between families and the workplace respec vely that could cause harm to an individual.
Therefore, the law is crucial in se ng up the framework in which society operates so that
both individual rights and J S Mill’s Harm Principle are sa s ed.
Furthermore, while the law should be enacted to prevent harm being done to others, it is
also key in preven ng harm being done to people by themselves. This is exempli ed through
paternalis c legisla on like seatbelt laws, where people are obligated to do something
despite their autonomous free will to decide their ac ons for themselves. This is because
the law must strike a balance between respec ng individual rights and the ul mate bene t
of society- in this case, people would be be er o being forced to wear seatbelts as there
would be less mortality in car accidents. Addi onally, paternalis c legisla on should be
enacted to address behavioural market failures. Adam Smith was wrong to claim that in a
free market, people would choose the op on that would maximise their welfare; it has been
proven today that people are o en prone to human error and the tendency to overlook
their long-term bene t for short-term pleasures. Hence the law should act as an agent to
‘nudge’ people towards the op on that would most op mise their welfare, as in the
example of a sugar tax to tackle obesity levels.
On the other hand, the law should also seek to endorse certain moral a tudes and promote
the virtue of ci zens. Criminalising an ac on or a thing indirectly a aches a moral value to it,
thus promp ng people to avoid it because it is inherently unethical. This concep on of the
law as a guidebook of morality could lead to a more righteous society with less crime overall
as people would follow the ‘right thing to do’. Even so, some may argue that legisla ng
morality could risk evolving into coercion and authoritarianism through the crea on of an
Orwellian ‘1984’ world. Moreover, considering the prac cality of this proposal further, some
di cult philosophical ques ons start to arise: should the law base its moral values on those
of the majority, risking an enactment of J S Mill’s tyranny of the majority, or should it have
an established guidebook of ethical standpoints that are deemed ‘right’ regardless of the
