Abstract
On Liberty provides the classic defence of what has come to be known as Mill's harm principle and yet that principle is commonly believed to be at odds with Mill's equally famous discussions of paternalism and good samaritanism. Moreover, the alleged inconsistencies are often said to expose the inadequacies not only of Mill's antipaternalism and good samaritanism but his harm principle as well. This paper offers a re-interpretation of these three aspects of On Liberty. It attempts to show both the unity of Mill's thought and how the contemporary relevance of his ideas has been misunderstood.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.