Comparing The Charter Of Rights And Freedoms By John Stuart Mill

Freedoms and rights are deemed to be a necessity for the human race to properly function. These principles are recognized as part of the Canadians Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to which are guaranteed to the individuals. These rights and freedoms help establish and maintain the state in which there prescribed too. The doctrine of these human rights were centrality from the European experiences that associated the inequality of men. Therefore, “it reflected the need, in western societies, to protect the individual against the powers of the state, and various forms of personal authority” (Groarke 450). Although, the human race is subject to violate these freedoms and rights than can lead to a dysfunctional society. Therefore, …show more content…
This statement then also leads to the justification of the kind of harm that is done to himself. But Mill states that harm only means direct harm and the harm that I do onto others does not count, with exceptions stated above. Moreover, he comments unless, thereby fail to fulfill some specific concrete obligation. But, Mill allows for the state to compel members of the society to aid others. In regards to those belonging to ‘backward states of society’, they are unable to recognize the freedom or the rights and therefore would not be able to understand or benefit from the harm principle. With difficulties that are already presented to the harm principle, there is no doubt that this principle would indeed have some criticisms. One being that we are more keenly interested in our own welfare, than interested in other people’s welfares. Meaning that we would clearly do anything that is more in our best interest, such as being an alcoholic, and fail to realize that it might be hurtful to someone else. There is also a failure to recognize those that are mentally ill, such as suffering from