Feinberg- Offense to Others

Type 2

Last week, we read and interpreted Mill’s harm principle. The basis of this was that one’s liberties may be infringed on if they infringe on someone else’s, and to prevent someone from causing harm. The idea of what is ‘harmful’ was a main question that came up. This week, Feinberg’s ‘Offensive Nuisances’ focuses on the offense principle. This parallels into the harm principle, because what is offensive is not always harmful and vise versa. The difference here is that with the harm principle, there are limitations on what can be criminalized by the state- only things that cause harm. However, the offensive principle creates a very broad subject. For example, I may say something offensive that harms someone else emotionally. Under the offense principle this could be criminalized and seen as harmful. But, the reality of it is that I have a first amendment right of free speech, and negatively commenting on someone’s outfit may be offensive and mean, but does not qualify as criminal activity.

Feinberg seems to narrow down this offense principle, though. He goes against what Mill says by proving his idea that offensive behavior can also be harmful, not just harm itself. First, the behavior must be harmful in the sense that it is a violation of someone’s rights. This compares perfectly to Mill’s harm principle. Next, it must cause ‘universally disliked’ (page 1) ideas, not ideas that only apply in a certain setting. This means that it must cause a feeling of embarrassment, disgust etc. Third, it must be a serious offense, not just an act out of character. The state also has jurisdiction over preventing the behavior in an ‘effective’ manner (page 1). He also states that punishments should be light and ‘more often fines then imprisonment” (page 4). With these ideas, Feinberg shows that he does not believe offensive behavior is worse than harmful behavior. Offensive behavior can cause feelings of animosity and distress, but should be dealt with lightly. Harmful behavior, however, should be dealt with strictly because it more so effects peoples liberty.