A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury. The latter case, it is true, requires a much more cautious exercise of compulsion than the former. To make any one answerable for doing evil to others, is the rule; to make him answerable for not preventing evil is, comparatively speaking, the exception. Yet there are many cases clear enough and grave enough to justify that exception. (p. 17)
About this quote
- What does it mean?
- Mill argues that inaction causing harm can also make one accountable, though this is an exception to the rule of action.
- In plain terms
- You can be held responsible for not stopping harm even though it is harder to judge than causing harm directly.
- What can you take from it?
- Be accountable for preventing harm, not just avoiding causing it.
Where it applies
Putting it to work
Questions to consider
- When are you responsible for not acting?
- How do you measure preventable harm?
Another view
Defining when inaction requires compulsion is difficult to enforce fairly.
More from John Stuart Mill
The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of com…
Permalink to quote #14 The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede …
Permalink to quote #16 Wherever the sentiment of the majority is still genuine and intense, it is found to have abated little of its claim to be obeyed. (p. 13)
Permalink to quote #13
Related quotes
To do what ought to be done but what would not have been done unless I did it, I thought to be my duty.
Robert MorrisonRobert Morrison quote #1 If you can do no good, at least do no harm.
Kurt VonnegutKurt Vonnegut quote #117 Failing to try and stop a murder that you might easily stop - how is that not murder?
Orson Scott CardOrson Scott Card quote #196