The government is considering an outright ban on smoking and alcohol on the
basis that it would save the National Health Service (NHS) billions of pounds
annually. The savings would be used to improve patient care, find new
treatments for serious conditions, and prolong average life expectancy. Many
people, however, believe that there are other ways to promote public health
and are concerned that the proposed ban is motivated by a dismissive attitude
towards the lifestyle choices of drinkers and smokers. They believe that
individuals have a right to a harmful lifestyle even if the ban would promote
average utility.
Write a 3000-word essay on the question of whether the proposed legal ban is
a legitimate restriction on liberty, based on the materials you have studied this
year in jurisprudence, particularly the work of John Stuart Mill.
1. Introduction
In the given question, the government is proposing an outright ban on smoking and
alcohol on the basis it will promote average utility, even though it would be a violation
of the individual’s right to a harmful lifestyle. In this essay, I argue that the proposed
legal ban is not a legitimate restriction on liberty. As the scenario lends itself well to
theories about liberty and utilitarianism, I will use Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill’s theories as a starting point to evaluate the legitimacy of the ban. Following that,
I will focus on applying Mill’s theories to the proposed ban and identify weaknesses
of his instrumental approach to liberty. Finally, I will consider liberty more broadly to
further argue that the ban will be an illegitimate restriction on liberty.
2. Bentham’s Utilitarianism
In the question, the government has accorded significant weight to how the ban on
smoking and alcohol would promote utility for society at large, even if it would restrict
individual rights. With this in mind, Bentham’s utilitarianism will be a useful starting
point to understand why the government would take this point of view. Bentham
believed that every person is only interested in “pain and pleasure” when it comes to
1
, the law and its consequences.1 If one accepted this to be an accurate
characterisation of human nature, it follows that utilitarianism, as a principle that
produces “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”2 should be the “sole and
all-sufficient reason” for any act.3 It is worth noting that Bentham treated utility as the
most important principle in deciding whether an act was correct not only for private
individuals, but also for “every measure of government”.4 Simply put, Bentham would
treat any act maximising utility for society as one which is legitimate.
Applying the Benthamite version of utilitarianism, it is fairly clear that the ban on
smoking and alcohol would quite straightforwardly be considered legitimate,
presuming the ban does indeed produce savings and improvements to the
healthcare system. Supporters of the ban would cite how alcohol and smoking
negatively impact society. These addictive vices are detrimental to individuals’
well-being and waste the National Health Service’s (NHS) resources to treat
diseases associated with these vices, such as liver failure or lung cancer. If the ban
will increase public health and prolong average life expectancy, while saving billions
of pounds that can be redirected towards improving patient care or researching new
medical treatments, the Benthamite would see little reason not to implement such a
ban. Liberty does not feature as a particularly important consideration, and it is
presumed that there is little to no good in allowing people to make harmful decisions.
As such, the Benthamite would argue that the ban would be legitimate as any
sacrifices to freedom that people make in giving up these vices will be worth the
benefit it produces for society.
Though this argument is attractive in its simplicity, it is worth questioning whether
individuals should be willing to so easily hand over decisions on their autonomy to
the government. Bentham’s utilitarian approach to law-making can easily lead down
a rather authoritarian path, where liberty can be legitimately removed as long as it
produces good for society. This may seem like a slippery slope argument, but there
already exist real-world examples where such reasoning has taken root with chilling
1
Jeremy Bentham, A Fragment on Government (Ross Harrison ed, Cambridge University Press
1988) 28.
2
Ibid, 25.
3
Ibid, 59.
4
Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Oxford, The Clarendon
Press 1879) 2.
2
basis that it would save the National Health Service (NHS) billions of pounds
annually. The savings would be used to improve patient care, find new
treatments for serious conditions, and prolong average life expectancy. Many
people, however, believe that there are other ways to promote public health
and are concerned that the proposed ban is motivated by a dismissive attitude
towards the lifestyle choices of drinkers and smokers. They believe that
individuals have a right to a harmful lifestyle even if the ban would promote
average utility.
Write a 3000-word essay on the question of whether the proposed legal ban is
a legitimate restriction on liberty, based on the materials you have studied this
year in jurisprudence, particularly the work of John Stuart Mill.
1. Introduction
In the given question, the government is proposing an outright ban on smoking and
alcohol on the basis it will promote average utility, even though it would be a violation
of the individual’s right to a harmful lifestyle. In this essay, I argue that the proposed
legal ban is not a legitimate restriction on liberty. As the scenario lends itself well to
theories about liberty and utilitarianism, I will use Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart
Mill’s theories as a starting point to evaluate the legitimacy of the ban. Following that,
I will focus on applying Mill’s theories to the proposed ban and identify weaknesses
of his instrumental approach to liberty. Finally, I will consider liberty more broadly to
further argue that the ban will be an illegitimate restriction on liberty.
2. Bentham’s Utilitarianism
In the question, the government has accorded significant weight to how the ban on
smoking and alcohol would promote utility for society at large, even if it would restrict
individual rights. With this in mind, Bentham’s utilitarianism will be a useful starting
point to understand why the government would take this point of view. Bentham
believed that every person is only interested in “pain and pleasure” when it comes to
1
, the law and its consequences.1 If one accepted this to be an accurate
characterisation of human nature, it follows that utilitarianism, as a principle that
produces “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”2 should be the “sole and
all-sufficient reason” for any act.3 It is worth noting that Bentham treated utility as the
most important principle in deciding whether an act was correct not only for private
individuals, but also for “every measure of government”.4 Simply put, Bentham would
treat any act maximising utility for society as one which is legitimate.
Applying the Benthamite version of utilitarianism, it is fairly clear that the ban on
smoking and alcohol would quite straightforwardly be considered legitimate,
presuming the ban does indeed produce savings and improvements to the
healthcare system. Supporters of the ban would cite how alcohol and smoking
negatively impact society. These addictive vices are detrimental to individuals’
well-being and waste the National Health Service’s (NHS) resources to treat
diseases associated with these vices, such as liver failure or lung cancer. If the ban
will increase public health and prolong average life expectancy, while saving billions
of pounds that can be redirected towards improving patient care or researching new
medical treatments, the Benthamite would see little reason not to implement such a
ban. Liberty does not feature as a particularly important consideration, and it is
presumed that there is little to no good in allowing people to make harmful decisions.
As such, the Benthamite would argue that the ban would be legitimate as any
sacrifices to freedom that people make in giving up these vices will be worth the
benefit it produces for society.
Though this argument is attractive in its simplicity, it is worth questioning whether
individuals should be willing to so easily hand over decisions on their autonomy to
the government. Bentham’s utilitarian approach to law-making can easily lead down
a rather authoritarian path, where liberty can be legitimately removed as long as it
produces good for society. This may seem like a slippery slope argument, but there
already exist real-world examples where such reasoning has taken root with chilling
1
Jeremy Bentham, A Fragment on Government (Ross Harrison ed, Cambridge University Press
1988) 28.
2
Ibid, 25.
3
Ibid, 59.
4
Jeremy Bentham, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Oxford, The Clarendon
Press 1879) 2.
2
