Mackie offers the following from J S Mill
"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others"
"The only part of the conduct of any one for which he is amenable to society is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself his independence is of right, absolute."
(A person's) "own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (for any interference with his liberty)
He notes that
Such principles are hard to defended vis a vis the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Many are not the best judges or guardians of their own good when it comes to pleasures of the flesh and securing freedom from pains. Can caring people not be justified in intervening to save someone from their own worst faults and to safeguard their life interests?
Our principles may be intuitive. In most of what we do - there is not just ourselves who are affected but others too. Yet Mackie feels that utilitarian explanations are insufficient - a "weak... foundation for liberty".
It is important to defend freedom of thought and speech (political, moral, religious or otherwise). They affect the way of life of many - not just for thinkers and talkers but because they offer more benefits than harms.
Free speech and argument - as intervention - may persuade others to change their views and policies. Their "good life" may benefit. But the persuasion itself may subjugate the listeners freedoms and those of others. The persuasive message may itself seek to deny the very freedoms are to be defended. Restraints on freedom of debate (censorship) are unlikely to be in the long-term interests of such freedom itself. A policy can be insidiously tendered as a defence of a liberty. But this liberty may conflict with another.
Rather than arguing for prima facie principles of non-interference (abstract, apply to everything, elusive generalities), Mackie prefers arguing for legitimate interference according to cases and available methods. Acceptable and unacceptable ways of affecting others can be defined where for specific cases the acceptable "harmonise with the general form of conditions for the good life".
Klingon: I claim the right to bring up my kids as I think fit. They will follow the family religion - the good book. It is my duty to pass on my beliefs and moral outlook.
Captain Picard: But doesn't this interfere with your children's freedom to make up their own minds. Rousseau you know recommended parents and teachers not to indoctrinate children. The kinds of things you are refering to can be discussed rationally with them when they are old enough to enjoy and benefit from a critical, intelligent discussion?
But it is unreal to postpone discussion of beliefs and values when even infants are exposed to a barrage of message flows everyday - which influence opinions. Of course we might object to and protect children from one-sided, doctrinal teaching which denies alternative opinions - even regarding these as wicked or banning rational re-examination of issues. Would this not interfere with the child's legitimate freedoms? Do others have the right to claim these for them (intervene)?
