My aim with this essay is to investigate if Australia's approach; implementation of lockdown, vaccine passport and restriction of the right of assembly and the impact on public protest is compatible with John Stuart Mill's harm principle. I found a conflict between the individual freedom and harm to others. One the one hand, to implement restrictions intervenes with the autonomy of an individual; of one’s body, freedom to move around freely and with freedom of speech. But on the other hand, not implementing these restrictions could potentially harm others by letting the virus spread in the society. My interpretation of Mill's harm principle is that liberty originates from the individual as a progressive being, hence I claim that allowing people to live their life as they chose -”experiment of living”, will lead to a better and happier society. I argue that the Australian government's approaches during the Covid 19 pandemic was not compatible with the harm principle’s individualistic core as I claim Australia neglected individual freedom. However, I argue that some restrictions might be compatible to the harm principle if they are proportional, time limited and properly scrutinised.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:umu-197450 |
| Date | January 2022 |
| Creators | Dahlqvist, Rachel |
| Publisher | Umeå universitet, Institutionen för idé- och samhällsstudier |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0027 seconds