Limits of Paternalism: Philosophy Forums

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

Page: 1 2

Limits of Paternalism

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 11/05/09 - 10:52 AM:	#11
Kamerynn: Yes I apologize most profusely for the deficiencies in grammatical construction caused by my inattentive editing. The wording should have been: Protecting someone from his or her self is always motivated by paternalism alone? Under the previous wording of my statement you answered that that would be "a passable account of what paternalism means." But that specific question didn't ask for the meaning of paternalism but whether protecting someone from his or her self was always motivated by paternalism alone? You didn't answer. I asked: "Protecting someone from another is or is not not paternalism?" Again this was as result of inattentive edition. Again my profuse apologies. But you seemed to understand the question well enough because you answered that it is not. But even though we don't have an agreed upon definition of "paternalism" I would venture that in fact we both could come up with circumstances of a person protecting another from his or her self that would not be considered caused by paternalism per se. Similarly I would venture that we both could come up with circumstances where protecting a person from another WOULD BE considered a result of paternalism per se. Kamerynn you wrote: "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.'" But of course I would not have known that had I not asked the question, or are you suggesting that you and I are so psychically close that I should have been able to read your mind in the first place? And a police officer would have had the authority to intervene, sans paternalism, even if no one at all was to be harmed by Smith crossing the bridge? I had written: "And why is it paternalism and not maternalism? A little sexist here?" And you Kamerynn responded: "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." I thought that we were supposed to be discussing "paternalism". Would it not be useful to the discussion to contrast paternalism and maternalism? Why is protecting someone from themselves thought to be paternalistic and not maternalistic? In poor taste to question this, or just a bit too much sensitivity by the reader? And you Kameryn wrote to me: "If you aren't going to bother to even read my responses ... then you aren't worth my time." Now who's off topic? :-) But no Kameryn, I never meant to suggest that I was worth your time. If you didn't before, please feel free to simply ignore every response to what you write that I may make . But thanks for the time anyway, Dave Searles Edited by davidasearles on 11/05/09 - 06:53 PM

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 11/06/09 - 10:51 AM:	#12
davidasearles wrote: But that specific question didn't ask for the meaning of paternalism but whether protecting someone from his or her self was always motivated by paternalism alone? The thread is about those actions that are motivated by paternalism. That there are other actions - ones motivated by something other than paternalism (or by a combination of motives) - is academic to whether paternalism itself (that is, paternalism alone) is justified. davidasearles wrote: But even though we don't have an agreed upon definition of "paternalism" I would venture that in fact we both could come up with circumstances of a person protecting another from his or her self that would not be considered caused by paternalism per se. Similarly I would venture that we both could come up with circumstances where protecting a person from another WOULD BE considered a result of paternalism per se. Protecting people from others is simply not paternalism - this is not what paternalism means in this context. The issue brought up in this thread is not ethics in general, but the protection of people from themselves when their actions harm no one but themselves. davidasearles wrote: And a police officer would have had the authority to intervene, sans paternalism, even if no one at all was to be harmed by Smith crossing the bridge? If no one, including Smith himself, was in danger of being harmed at all, then I fail to see what would motivate the officer's actions. How is the notion that no one is in danger of harm relevant to the thread (and, "sans paternalism," not even Smith is in danger of being harmed)? Are you arguing that police should have the authority to intervene even when they have no reason to do so? davidasearles wrote: I thought that we were supposed to be discussing "paternalism". Would it not be useful to the discussion to contrast paternalism and maternalism? Why is protecting someone from themselves thought to be paternalistic and not maternalistic? In poor taste to question this, or just a bit too much sensitivity by the reader? We know what "paternalism" means and we are using it in accordance with that meaning. You're right; any insistence that the use of "paternalism" is sexist must result from over-sensitivity. No one is using the word "paternalism" to oppress women (least of all me)! It is as though someone decided my default use of "she" (instead of the more common default use of "he") is sexist. It really is beside the point of the thread, and it is an odd assertion to begin with (likely resulting from over-sensitivity). Yes, it is in poor taste to question this, in my opinion. Only an over-sensitive feminist would question the use of "paternalism," or the default use of the pronoun "he," as sexist. We are not hiding sexist notions in our attempts to communicate with you; we are, again, merely using terms as they are conventionally used.
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

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 11/06/09 - 02:54 PM:	#13
Kamerynn wrote: The thread is about those actions that are motivated by paternalism. That there are other actions - ones motivated by something other than paternalism (or by a combination of motives) - is academic to whether paternalism itself (that is, paternalism alone) is justified. Somehow the internal private motivation as to why Jones stops Smith (or was it the other way around) from trying to cross the bridge that Smith considers to be too dangerous to safely cross is all important. If the motivation contains any paternalism at all the action must be wrong? If the motivation was purely "I didn't want to be kept up all night as they dragged the river for your body." That's be alright. But if it was "I didn't want to see you throw your life away simply because you felt you had to cross the bridge" - the action because it contained any element at all of the dreaded paternalism must be adjudged wrongly motivated? Kamerynn wrote: Protecting people from others is simply not paternalism - this is not what paternalism means in this context. The issue brought up in this thread is not ethics in general, but the protection of people from themselves when their actions harm no one but themselves. It is simply not paternalism, or Kameryn simply can't think of an instance of one person protecting a person from another could possibly to any degree be motivated by paternalism? Kamerynn wrote: If no one, including Smith himself, was in danger of being harmed at all, then I fail to see what would motivate the officer's actions. That's right, you would fail to be able to discern without knowing all of the circumstances. The cop tells you to not cross the bridge. You ask him why. He tells you that he thinks the bridge is unsafe and that he is not going to let anyone cross until the highway engineer gets there to check it out. You tell him that you are willing to take your chances. He tells you that you'll take your chances of sitting in a jail cell if you try to cross. Is this paternalism or not. It really doesn't make a damned bit of difference does it? The cop has the badge and you don't. It's a discretion that we give to the persons we appoint to regulate traffic. I'm not making this up. There was a car accident right in front of my house. The guy was thrown from the Jeep and was lying in a ditch next to the overturned car. I am not a cop or a paramedic. The guy was trying to get up and I physically would not let him. All I had to do was to keep my palm on his forehead and he was pinned. He was trying to move his arms but he didn't have the strength to lift his hand up to his face to move my hand away. But it was obvious that he was trying to get up. It seems to be an instinctive reaction that people try to get up and try to walk off the shock and disorientation caused by accidents. I was told by the paramedic who eventually did arrive that I did the right thing because he could have had spinal cord damage that he would have made worse, possible paralyzing him if he had gotten up, but of course I had no "authority" other than it was done to protect him, and ON BALANCE the action seemed justifiable. Paternalism? Kamerynn wrote: How is the notion that no one is in danger of harm relevant to the thread (and, "sans paternalism," not even Smith is in danger of being harmed)? Are you arguing that police should have the authority to intervene even when they have no reason to do so? I didn't say no reason. I said sans paternalsim. Suppose that there is a city ordinance that simply says that no one is to cross the bridge after dark. Whether the city council was motivated by paternalism makes no difference to the cop. Whether the city council was motivated by paternalism makes no difference to the judge. Kamerynn wrote: We know what "paternalism" means and we are using it in accordance with that meaning. You are claiming omniscience or merely the right to determine for everyone for all time without further discussion precisely what is meant by the word? Kamerynn wrote: You're right I just love to read those words over and over again. Kamerynn wrote: any insistence that the use of "paternalism" is sexist must result from over-sensitivity. any insistence to that effect, and apparently according to you any questioning of that possibility as well. Kamerynn wrote: No one is using the word "paternalism" to oppress women (least of all me)! Did you consider whether the term could be sexist toward males? Kamerynn wrote: It really is beside the point of the thread, and it is an odd assertion to begin with (likely resulting from over-sensitivity). And the "assertion" was? Kamerynn wrote: Yes, it is in poor taste to question this, in my opinion. Now it's not an assertion but a question. Kamerynn wrote: Only an over-sensitive feminist would question the use of "paternalism" or the default use of the pronoun "he," as sexist. We are not hiding sexist notions in our attempts to communicate with you; we are, again, merely using terms as they are conventionally used." I'm very glad that we got into this conversation, you seem then to be expressing the opinion that the terms paternalism and materialism essentially mean the same thing, except for the convention in English of the use of the male gender (rightly or wrongly) sometimes to imply the female gender as well. Is this correct? (And you know damned well that I am worth your time :-) We are not hiding sexist notions in our attempts to communicate with you; we are, again, merely using terms as they are conventionally used. [/quote] Edited by davidasearles on 11/06/09 - 03:02 PM

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 11/06/09 - 03:19 PM:	#14
Paternalism oversteps its bounds when its acts of protection provides either no benefit or a negative benefit to the individual and/or the greater society. The state perceives that certain actions of individuals cause harm to the greater society and so acts to prevent them by engaging the law enforcement apparatus. In some cases there is little to no actual harm to society, just a faulty perception of what is harmful and must be protected against. Very often this leads to great damage to many individuals and added costs to society far beyond that of allowing such activity and dealing with the consequences in other ways. Where paternalism is arbitrary and capricious in its application it fails completely because it becomes it becomes untrustworthy in the experience of many people. Those actions that people actually need to be prevented from become confused with those that are not and widespread lawbreaking without societal control becomes rampant. This is a great danger to the state as it loses credibility and with it, control. This is easily portrayed in the illicit drug culture. It is ubiquitous, it is without bounds. Harmless drugs like marijuana and hashish are lumped together with dangerous drugs like heroin and crack and meth while alcohol, which is extremely harmful, remains legal. The failure of the state's perception of harm to match that of the populace makes them an untrusted broker in the dialog on drug use. And if the state is lying about drugs, what else does it lie about. It is a dangerous and slippery slope the state embarks on when instituting paternalism from a faulty perspective.

Kamerynn
Vetran Lurker

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 31, 2005

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 159

Posted 11/06/09 - 04:33 PM:	#15
davidasearles wrote: You are claiming omniscience or merely the right to determine for everyone for all time without further discussion precisely what is meant by the word? Neither. I simply discovered the meaning of the word "paternalism" from its context, and I am using it in a way that is consistent with how others are (except yourself, apparently). That we use the word in the same manner facilitates communication. This is not omniscience and it isn't prescriptivism. I've simply related what the word means (in this context) according to how it is being used. davidasearles wrote: It is simply not paternalism, or Kameryn simply can't think of an instance of one person protecting a person from another could possibly to any degree be motivated by paternalism? It is simply not the subject of discussion; paternalism is. Paternalism has nothing to do with protecting people from others. Again, this is not prescriptivism, but the obvious intent behind the use of this word in this thread. davidasearles wrote: I didn't say no reason. I said sans paternalsim. Suppose that there is a city ordinance that simply says that no one is to cross the bridge after dark. Whether the city council was motivated by paternalism makes no difference to the cop. Whether the city council was motivated by paternalism makes no difference to the judge. When deciding on their behavior, the officer and the judge ought not make moral judgments and should simply uphold the law. If they could choose which laws to uphold, justice wouldn't function. Their inability, unwillingness, or lack of right to impose their judgments on the law should not be relevant to us; whether the officer or the judge make the right decision - whether the law actually is just - is something we can discuss despite the fact that the officer and judge have no right to otherwise. It simply doesn't matter that an officer must give out a ticket to a motorcycle rider because he wasn't wearing a helmet. The thread's question is: is this law (and ones like it) justified? Would it be justified if the motorcyclist didn't harm anyone but himself with his decision? This is where the philosophy comes in. This is why comments like the following aren't relevant: "The cop tells you to not cross the bridge. You ask him why. He tells you that he thinks the bridge is unsafe and that he is not going to let anyone cross until the highway engineer gets there to check it out. You tell him that you are willing to take your chances. He tells you that you'll take your chances of sitting in a jail cell if you try to cross. Is this paternalism or not. It really doesn't make a damned bit of difference does it? The cop has the badge and you don't. It's a discretion that we give to the persons we appoint to regulate traffic." It's like you're telling us that we have no right to be interested in whether the law/action is justified. davidasearles wrote: you seem then to be expressing the opinion that the terms paternalism and materialism essentially mean the same thing No, I'm stating that we don't need to use a word other than "paternalism" to discuss these matters simply because you feel that it is somehow sexist. In the same sense, I would ignore your objection to my pronoun use, even though I use "she" rather consistently. davidasearles wrote: And the "assertion" was? That our use of the word "paternalism" might somehow be sexist. davidasearles wrote: Now it's not an assertion but a question. Again, it is in poor taste to question whether our use of "paternalism" is sexist. It amounts to ignoring the intent of this thread and the substantive points within it. I'm not sure if anyone is even interested in whether the inherent "masculine quality" of "paternalism" is sexist, or whether the inherent feminine quality in "she" is sexist. If they are, you should all gravitate toward a new thread on that very topic, leaving this thread for the discussion of paternalism. You have been very argumentative and it's hard to understand why. It's like you're trying your hardest to come up with things to nit-pick, whether they have anything to do with the thread or not. You seem to believe that what you write is worth my time, although you're still struggling a great deal when trying to demonstrate that. If you can discard your idea that these things might be sexist, your idea that "paternalism" can refer to protecting people from others, and your idea that paternalism doesn't make "a damned bit of difference" because cops act as they do anyway, then you might be able to contribute something of substance. As it is, the only on-topic part of your post is your example of you helping someone (and, therefore, I hope that's all you care to really talk about in this thread; I'm done with the other silliness, so don't except any more responses concerning sexism or conventional word use). It seems that you acted, not to protect others from this man, but to protect him from himself. Let me ask: was he capable of making an informed decision about whether to move? If you had given him information about his possible condition, would he have been capable of understanding it? Paternalism is justified in regard to our children precisely because, in many cases, they aren't capable of making their own informed decisions. We cannot say the same of adults except for in particular cases like the one you have given. Do you believe that all paternalist legislation, such as anti-marijuana laws, follow this case? That is, are adults incapable of making informed decisions regarding marijuana or alcohol? Or, should adults be free to drink alcohol (but not drive while drunk), smoke marijuana, etc., because we value freedom and place the responsibility on individuals for their own happiness?
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

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 11/11/09 - 04:57 AM:	#16
Kamerynn wrote: I simply discovered the meaning of the word "paternalism" from its context... Discovered? Was it covered?

davidasearles
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 15, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 130

Posted 11/11/09 - 05:07 AM:	#17
Kamerynn wrote: Again, it is in poor taste to question whether our use of "paternalism" is sexist. Either that or it's in poor taste to look at a side of any discussion that Kameryn wasn't counting on. Why isn't the very concept of paternalism sexist against male persons? Hell, you thought that sexist had to mean that it was specifically against females? Sexism is against both sexes.

Page: 1 2

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