gerald dworkin paternalism essay

Abstract John Stuart Mill's On Liberty continues to shape modern Western conceptions of individual freedom. In this volume, eight leading Mill scholars comment on this landmark work. Their essays, selected for their importance and accessibility, serve as an excellent introduction to this foundational text.
This excellent collection links paternalism to a wide variety of topics including criminalization, self-sovereignty, autonomy, moral environmentalism, suicide prevention, the Hart-Rawls principle of fairness, paternalism in economics, choice architecture, psychology and paternalism, libertarian paternalism, voluntary enslavement, and school choice. In their Introduction, the editors discuss recent trends. One is a growing consensus in favor of paternalism. Related to this is another: increased agreement that the perceived evils of paternalism, including coercion, removal of choice, and disregard of the target's evaluative perspective, need not be present in instances of paternalism. Given these trends, it is not surprising that the main issue they discuss is what, if anything, makes paternalism, morally problematic? Their conclusion (p. 24) is that it remains unclear what precisely, if anything, is wrong with paternalism. What is paternalism? Many think of paternalistic acts and policies as those that restrict the liberty of individuals for their own good. Whether or not this captures the essence of paternalism, unclarities surface once obvious philosophical questions are asked, as Gerald Dworkin demonstrates in his very good essay. For an act to be paternalistic is it the actual or potential reasons for the liberty restriction that matter? If the actual reasons are determinative, then a problem arises where there are multiple reasons for the paternalism. If only one person restricts the liberty of another, we might rely on the reason the agent acted on, but when laws are passed, there are many legislators, often with different motives. Two thirds of the Florida legislature may vote for a law requiring me to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle for my own protection, but one third may simply be trying to reduce costs to the taxpayers who pay for the treatment of.
Barbara Hands considers whether it is ever right for the law to limit your freedom of choice and action, for your own good. Fred and Bob are a gay couple who have been together for 15 years. Fred is nearing death from AIDS, and his partner Bob is a doctor. Fred has asked Bob to relieve him of his misery now so that he does not have to be in pain and a burden to Bob for the next three months or so. Fred and Bob are aware of the law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. They consider the law paternalistic and find themselves wrestling with the question of whether or not it is morally justified. This article is available to subscribers only. If you are a subscriber please Log In to your account. To buy or renew a subscription please visit the Shop. If you are a subscriber you can contact us to create an account.