Mill I do not want to go along with a volunteer basis.
Introduction The government requires people to contribute to a pension system Social Security. It requires motorcyclists to wear helmets. It forbids people from swimming at a public beach when lifeguards are not present. It forbids the sale of various drugs deemed to be ineffective.
It forbids the sale of various drugs believed to be harmful. It does not allow consent to certain forms of assault to be a defense against prosecution for that assault.
The civil law does not allow the enforcement of certain kinds of contracts, e. It requires minors to have blood transfusions even if their religious beliefs forbid it. Persons may be civilly committed if they are a danger to themselves.
Doctors do not tell their patients the truth about their medical condition. A physician may tell the wife of a man whose car went off a bridge into the water and drowned that he died instantly when in fact he died a rather ghastly death.
A husband may hide the sleeping pills from a depressed wife. A philosophy department may require a student to take logic courses.
A teacher may be less than honest about telling a student that he has little philosophical ability. All of these rules, policies, and actions may be done for various reasons; may be justified by various considerations.
When they are justified solely on the grounds that the person affected would be better off, or would be less harmed, as a result of the rule, policy, etc. As the examples indicate the question of paternalism is one that arises in many different areas of our personal and public life.
As such, it is an important realm of applied ethics. But it also raises certain theoretical issues. Perhaps the most important is: It also raises questions about the proper ways in which individuals, either in an institutional or purely personal setting, should relate to one another.
How should we think about individual autonomy and its limits? What is it to respect the personhood of others?
What is the trade-off, if any, between regard for the welfare of another and respect for their right to make their own decisions? This entry examines some of the conceptual issues involved in analyzing paternalism, and then discusses the normative issues concerning the legitimacy of paternalism by the state and various civil institutions.
Conceptual Issues The analysis of paternalism involves at least the following elements. It involves some kind of limitation on the freedom or autonomy of some agent and it does so for a particular class of reasons.
As with many other concepts used in normative debate determining the exact boundaries of the concept is a contested issue.
And as often is the case the first question is whether the concept itself is normative or descriptive. Is application of the concept a matter for empirical determination, so that if two people disagree about the application to a particular case they are disagreeing about some matter of fact or of definition?
Or does their disagreement reflect different views about the legitimacy of the application in question? While it is clear that for some to characterize a policy as paternalistic is to condemn or criticize it, that does not establish that the term itself is an evaluative one.
As a matter of methodology it is preferable to see if some concept can be defined in non-normative terms and only if that fails to capture the relevant phenomena to accept a normative definition. I suggest the following conditions as an analysis of X acts paternalistically towards Y by doing omitting Z: Z or its omission interferes with the liberty or autonomy of Y.
X does so without the consent of Y.
X does so only because X believes Z will improve the welfare of Y where this includes preventing his welfare from diminishingor in some way promote the interests, values, or good of Y.Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm.
GELD DWOIN • Paternalism Paternalism. GERALD DWORKIN. Gerald Dworkin, professor of philosophy at the Universiy of California-Davis, examines John Stuart Mill's objections to intefering with a person's liberty on paternalistic grounds-that is, in order to promote the person's own good or happiness.
Liberty and Paternalism Essay Words | 7 Pages. LIBERTY AND PATERNALISM John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified.
How does Gerald Dworkin define paternalism? What are some of the examples does he cite of clearly paternalistic laws? What is the difference between pure/impure paternalism. "Gerald Dworkin Paternalism" Essays and Research Papers Gerald Dworkin Paternalism LIBERTY AND PATERNALISM John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified.
Dworkin: paternalism should be allowed in some cases, & sometimes it is our duty. BUT WHEN? “Paternalism is justified only to preserve a wider range of freedom for the individual in question” Consider children: parent has duty to do what the child would want if the child were the adult.