존 스튜어트 밀의 위해의 원리와 중독

Abstract

This study examines the legitimacy of social intervention in an individual's addictive behavior, focusing on Mill's “Harm Principle" and “Principle of Utility", also known as the “Greatest Happiness Principle." The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that, while ensuring individual liberty, the best approach to dealing with addiction — for both a civilized society and the mature citizens within it — is for addicts to prioritize self-regulation. Libertarians argue that addictive behavior is a matter of personal choice and preference, and as long as it does not harm others, social intervention is unjustified. However, since most addictions today are considered diseases and social pathologies, paternalists believe that addiction should fall within the realm of social control and intervention. In response, Mill argues that the balance between the “Harm Principle" and the “Principle of Utility" or the “Greatest Happiness Principle", supports the maximization of individual liberty through voluntary choice and self-control by individuals with a social feeling of mankind. Therefore, when an addict's behavior harms or has the potential to harm others, the addict must do their utmost to regulate or control that behavior. Moreover, society should strive to provide guidance, education, and public opinion to help addicts overcome their addiction through self-regulation.