1- Please create a title for your post by putting it in bold, “header 2” as the first line of your text. This way, everyone can skim the discussion and quickly get an idea of what topics are covered.

2- The purpose of this discussion board is to get you to reflect upon whether offense to others could ever justify criminal limitations on behavior.
Harm and Offense are distinguished, but how? What does Feinberg argue? Like many philosophers, Feinberg is reluctant to see offense to others as grounds for restrictions. People can be offended about all kinds of things, historically mixed racial couples were legally prohibited on grounds of offense, so were homosexual couples. But Feinberg tries to come up with some actions which he thinks are objectively offensive and thus might be grounds for restriction. Notice that the viewers are captive audiences on the bus–does that make a difference? If you can avoid seeing or hearing something that is offensive, should you have to do that before restricting it?

3- Here is the discussion prompt

Do you agree with any of these behaviors as being offensive enough such that it should be criminalized? The general question is whether offense to others could ever be grounds for criminal restrictions. Think of some of the laws we have that are based on offense, say public nudity–no harm there, so why criminalize it. Explain your views. What is the difference according to Feinberg between offense and harm? Remember to respond, respectfully, to two of your classmates.

ANSWER

Harm Principle and Offense Principle in Criminal Law

Harm Principle and Offense Principle in Criminal Law

The freedom or liberty of a citizen in a country is a constitutional necessity and inherent right; however, it is crucial to ensure that one’s freedoms do not limit another person’s freedoms due to the diversities we have among people. For example, some people may be offended or harmed by an act, behavior, or statement, while others will find the same act mildly hilarious or amusing. According to John Stuart Mill, the grounds and rightful power to restrict individual freedoms and liberty are when their behavior or action harms others through his harm principle. In that case, a state can legitimately offer restrictions (Mill, 2018). Mill provides a code that provides the justifiable grounds for a country to restrict individual liberties, which is if an individual’s behavior is harming. For instance, if one speaks words, draws illustrations, or displays threatening, abusive, and insulting writings such as racism or homophobia that is likely to cause harm such as harassment or violence against them, the people responsible can be tried and criminalized (Mill, 2018).

On the other hand, through his offense principle, Feinberg argues that offensive acts or behaviors are good reasons to censure or restrict individual freedoms. An offensive action must be grounded and stated offensive if it carries mental dislike, an element of resentment, and a wrong done. Feinberg’s offensive principle does not apply when an act is offensive when an individual feels wronged. Feinberg acknowledges the harm principle; however, differentiates the two arguing that harm refers to actions that setback or impede another person’s interest while offense relates to actions and behaviors that cause mental dislike, hate, or despise (Petersen, 2019). For instance, if A poured acid on B’s eyes and B went blind, the action would be harmful as it setbacks B’s desires to see. However, when two people publicly romance or have intercourse, some may hate or despise them according to their cultures or social conventions. In this case, the action and behavior to have public intercourse causes mental dislike and not harm. Feinberg argues that the behaviors that cause mental displeasure or embarrass people are not harmful, such as public nudity but offensive in nature.

According to Feinberg, harm and offense cannot be considered in similar weight when legally deciding to limit individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, actions and behaviors based on harm and offense should not be subjected to similar sentences but should be reason enough to restrict people’s liberties and freedoms. I believe behaviors that are harmful and offensive in nature are ground enough for limiting an individual’s freedoms and criminalization. However, one cannot be sufficient without the other, hence complement each other. Since the offensive principle states that a wrong must be done as a feature to describe the principle, some offensive wrongs can result in harm. A good example is speaking words, drawing illustrations, or displaying threatening, abusive, and insulting writings (offensive in nature) such as racism or transphobia that are likely to cause harm such as harassment and violence against them (Mill, 2018). Criminal law can be used to criminalize behaviors and acts that harm and offend legitimately. Actions that impede or set back another person’s desires and cause mental dislike and resentment show a lack of respect and infringement of other people’s rights; hence should be addressed by the law (Petersen, 2019). Therefore, even though we all have our constitutional liberties and inherent rights, we should not engage in behaviors that limit or impede others’ same rights and show disrespect. This is why laws such as criminal law and constitutions are created: to create a world where we all feel our liberties and rights are respected and uniformly exercised.

References

Mill, D. (2018). Freedom of Speech. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2018/entries/freedom-speech/>.

Petersen, T. S. (2019). Why Criminalize?: New Perspectives on Normative Principles of Criminalization. Roskilde: Springer.