Limits of Paternalism: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Limits of Paternalism » Limits of Paternalism

Page: 1 2

Limits of Paternalism

sonic23
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 02, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 2

Posted 11/02/09 - 06:20 PM: Subject: Limits of Paternalism	#1
Hello, I am a University student and I am struggling to fully understand what the limits are in regards to governments and paternalistic interference with individual freedoms. I feel that it is unjusifiable to infringe on a citizens privacy to a great extent (Patriot Act), but at the same time I find it difficult to argue against something that is really there "for our own good". Is the government right in restricting drug use, or setting a minimum drinking age? Or are is our freedom much more valuable than to allow ourselves to be subjected to paternalism? Any opinions are welcomed, Sonic

spock
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 23

Posted 11/02/09 - 07:16 PM:	#2
Freedom is of no use to an impaired, injured or stoned person.

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 11/03/09 - 11:23 AM:	#3
A couple quotes to start: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant." -- J.S. Mill A justification of the above: "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 their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." -- J.S. Mill I describe what I believe ought to be the limits of paternalism in terms of strong paternalism and weak paternalism. Imagine Smith is about to cross a bridge, and Jones stops him to tell him that the bridge is in disrepair and is dangerous to cross. Jones is being paternalist in what I call the "weak" sense. He is looking out for Smith by giving him information so that Smith can make the best decision given his circumstances. Suppose that Smith decides to cross the bridge anyway and Jones then tackles him, holds him down, and doesn't let him do so. We could even suppose that Jones keeps watch until the bridge is fixed, making sure that Smith never crosses it as long as Jones considers it dangerous to do so. The latter case (or two cases) draws out what I mean by "strong" paternalism. In my opinion, weak paternalism is ethical. Strong paternalism is not. Jones ought to have no say in whether crossing the bridge is worth Smith risking his life.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Death&Taxes
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 31, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 11/04/09 - 12:58 AM:	#4
Burger King, McDonalds and KFC kills more people than heroin, methamphetamine and cocaine and doesn't make them feel near as good while they do so. So should we make the Whopper, Big mac and Original Recipe banned substances? Everything we do has some risk to ourselves. It would be safer just to stay in bed, than to live any kind of meaningful life. Why should the government be allowed to determine for us what is acceptable risk?

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 135

Posted 11/04/09 - 01:19 AM:	#5
"Jones then tackles him, holds him down, and doesn't let him do so." But suppose Jones is a police officer who has authority to regulate traffic. Would that be paternalistic or just a cop doing his or her job? And is protecting someone from themselves always predicated upon paternalism? Doesn't society have a right to protect itself from having to fish yet another body out of the river and having to use additional community resources in trying to determine whether there was foul play involved? Also wouldn't society have an interest in protecting someone from themselves if the person was temporarily mentally distressed? And what if the person had financial obligations such as child support, or was to be punished for a crime? Should a society simply allow people to evade their obligations in toto if the person thinks for a while that it would be better to "off" one's self rather than to have to face the music? Edited by davidasearles on 11/04/09 - 04:10 AM

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 11/04/09 - 07:51 AM:	#6
davidasearles wrote: "Jones then tackles him, holds him down, and doesn't let him do so." But suppose Jones is a police officer who has authority to regulate traffic. Would that be paternalistic or just a cop doing his or her job? He would be doing his job. You have, of course, changed the example. Thus, any answer changes with it. My scenario wasn't meant to imply that certain death awaited when one crossed the bridge. It also wasn't meant to imply that someone would drive across the bridge, destroy it even further, thus doing society some harm (remember, the whole point, here, is paternalism, not harm to society). The point of my example was that, assuming that Smith would harm no one else, Jones has no right to tell Smith what is worth risking his life for. davidasearles wrote: And is protecting someone from themselves always predicated upon paternalism? Yes; that is what "paternalism" means in this context. davidasearles wrote: Doesn't society have a right to protect itself from having to fish yet another body out of the river and having to use additional community resources in trying to determine whether there was foul play involved? Yes. Paternalism isn't about whether society has a right to protect itself from harm (or wasted resources). Of course it does. This is beside the point. davidasearles wrote: Also wouldn't society have an interest in protecting someone from themselves if the person was temporarily mentally distressed? Perhaps it would and perhaps it wouldn't. If it did, it would be because that person's mental stress somehow affects society. The issue, then, would not be paternalism but whether society ought to be able to protect itself. davidasearles wrote: And what if the person had financial obligations such as child support, or was to be punished for a crime? Should a society simply allow people to evade their obligations in toto if the person thinks for a while that it would be better to "off" one's self rather than to have to face the music? Are you saying that evading obligations or committing crimes doesn't harm others? Like many of your comments, the above really has nothing to do with paternalism.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Hamandcheese
Ham of state

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 05, 2007
Location: Canada

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 128

Posted 11/04/09 - 03:34 PM:	#7
Paternalism doesn't have to interfer with individual freedoms. For instance: suppose people are 60% more likely to eat healthy when the health food is near the entrance at the grocery store. Is it interfering to, on that basis, rearrange your store? Stores can do this volunterily or with a government incentive, but its the kind of "soft paternalism" that is good for society yet complelely non-invasive.
theham88@gmail.com

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 135

Posted 11/04/09 - 04:39 PM:	#8
Kamerynn: Protecting someone his or her own self is always motivated by paternalism alone? Protecting someone from another is or is not not paternalism? And why is it paternalism and not maternalism? A little sexist here? I changed the example??? I asked a question about your own example, or is one not to do that on this board?

Minyun
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2009

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 251

Posted 11/04/09 - 11:29 PM:	#9
Hamandcheese wrote: For instance: suppose people are 60% more likely to eat healthy when the health food is near the entrance at the grocery store. Is it interfering to, on that basis, rearrange your store? Stores can do this volunterily or with a government incentive, but its the kind of "soft paternalism" that is good for society yet complelely non-invasive. This would be great, if it were true. Where are the health-shop drive thru's? Money dictates if government should take a 'strong' paternalism or 'weak' paternalism of its society, and in a sense what makes the government rich also makes the people rich, that is if you think politicians are virtuous... In my country, the government is thinking about imposing a 1% tax on public TV, currently public TV is not all that great. Which is fantastic, the theory is that it uplifts government facilities, which uplifts its people. Then I remember that the people behind this theory also spend millions on political schemes and gourmet lunches in posh restaurants, and then I come to think that the 1% tax will do nothing to uplift its people, but only its leaders. When I realise that greed fuels everything, the idea of having paternal leaders is ridiculous.

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 11/05/09 - 08:31 AM:	#10
davidasearles wrote: Kamerynn: Protecting someone his or her own self is always motivated by paternalism alone? If the above were grammatically correct, it would likely be a passable account of what "paternalism" means, yes. davidasearles wrote: Protecting someone from another is or is not not paternalism? Are you attempting to trap me into saying it either is, or is "not not," thereby implying that only one answer is acceptable? The answer is "not." Here's a link that you could use to dissolve your confusion about the meaning of this term: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/ Of course, I don't believe you're actually interested in the philosophy, but more on that below. davidasearles wrote: And why is it paternalism and not maternalism? A little sexist here? I hope that's a joke, even though it is in poor taste and on the wrong forum. Meaning relies on convention, and the word "paternalism" is conventionally used to discuss the topic of this thread. Try to keep on track with the discussion, here, if you can. davidasearles wrote: I changed the example??? I asked a question about your own example, or is one not to do that on this board? Again, "The point of my example was that, assuming that Smith would harm no one else, Jones has no right to tell Smith what is worth risking his life for." If you aren't going to bother to even read my responses, let alone address them, then you aren't worth my time. You seem to be trolling for a reaction rather than doing any philosophy, as per usual. In fact, I'm surprised that you're still here in the philosophy forums at all. On a more relevant note: Minyun wrote: When I realise that greed fuels everything, the idea of having paternal leaders is ridiculous. Too true.
When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong. -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Page: 1 2

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.