接下来，对密尔的论点进行分析。他提出了一些关于由于个性和思想发展而导致的社会进步的可靠观点。从本质上讲，密尔认为每个人都从他们的错误中学习，正是通过这些，个人发展才得以发生。不幸的是，他那篇关于自由的文章有一些漏洞，他对自由的界限太过模糊。他对伤害的定义也太过含糊。这是因为他把个人自由看得太重要了，把幸福和理解最大化。他没有考虑到个人的选择有时会对他人造成伤害。家长式作风就是一个很好的例子。安全带法律规定，无论想不想系，每个人都必须系上安全带。法律是以保护个人的名义制定的。根据密尔的观点，他声称安全带法律将会侵犯个人的幸福和自由，而不管事故中可能发生的伤害。因此，他没有恰当地解决个人做出糟糕选择的问题。最后，讨论了罗伯特·拉蒂默的案件，并提出了法律上的重大例外。通过对自由的定义及其与个人自由的联系，探讨了约翰·斯图亚特·密尔的伤害原则。同时也探讨了密尔认为自由是有限的唯一情况:保护他人免受伤害。最后，有人提出了反对密尔论点的理由，比如他对自由和伤害的解释含糊不清，以及这种解释与糟糕的个人选择有关。
北美留学生代写作业:进行分析
Next, analysis of Mill’s argument will be done. He brings up some solid points regarding societal progress due to individuality and thought development. Essentially, Mill claims that individuals learn from their mistakes and it is through this that personal development occurs. Unfortunately, his essay On liberty has gaps in which he is too vague on the limits of liberty. He also is much too vague on his definition of harm. This is due to the fact that he places way too much importance on individual freedoms to maximize happiness and understanding. He does not take into consideration that personal choices regarding an individual can sometimes be harmful to others. The argument of paternalism is a good example of this. Seat belt laws dictate that individuals must wear their belts regardless that they want to or not. The laws are in place in the name of the protection of the individual. With Mill’s argument, he claims that seat belt laws would be an infringement on personal happiness and freedom, regardless of the possibility of injury in an accident. Thus, he does not properly address the issue of an individual making poor choices.To conclude, the case of Robert Latimer was discussed and the momentous exception in law that was done. Through this, the Principle of Harm by John Stuart Mill was explored through its definition in regards to liberty and its link to personal freedom. Also explored was the only circumstance in which Mill believes freedom can be limited: to protect others from harm. Lastly, objections to Mill argument were brought up such as his vagueness in his explanations of liberty and harm as well as its tie to bad personal choices.
