Explain The Harm Principle By William Feinberg

Joel Feinberg says that the harm principle can require certain types of actions. He agrees that the harm principle prevents harm from happening to the public but he also interprets the harm principle in a way that gives the public access to certain types of benefits that prevent harm. However, these benefits are made available by requiring taking action on the public. These benefits include but are not limited too, items such as paying taxes. By requiring the public to pay taxes then they are supporting public benefits. Public benefits are defined in a way that if they were not given then they would cause harm on the public by not being available.
Feinberg says that the public is harmed when they are deprived of their needs. This means that …show more content…
This could be anything from public parks and libraries to helping take people out of poverty and worse situations. Harm is caused when people are deprived of their needs. The needs of the public are education, fair opportunities, access to public places to expand social interactions, and an assortment of other needs that are community based. If the public is deprived of these needs because we do not interpret the harm principle in a way that provides these needs then we are harming the public just as they could harm one another. This is because if the harm principle is interpreted as just preventing harm from happening to others from acts such as crime then there is no point in having laws that justify having harm …show more content…
This point can only be made though if that person is preventing harm from occurring to another person, even if it is directly or indirectly causing harm. This can be applied in cases of suicide. If one sees a widowed mother about to jump off a side of a building, who in return would be leaving her children behind with no support; therefore, causing harm. Then the bystander would have the authority the jump in and stop the woman from committing suicide. However, if one sees someone with no family or no loved ones about to jump off a building, then they do not have the right to stop them. This is because that person would not be committing harm to anyone but himself or herself, which is not covered in the harm principle. While the bystander may feel obligated to stop the suicide from happening in both cases, it would only be permissible in the first circumstance. In the second circumstance, the person committing suicide, if stopped, could come back in return and say that the bystander caused harm by preventing him or her from committing their own free