Dworkin:
Paternalism: limitations on personal freedom or choice, done to benefit the person whose freedom is restricted.
Pure: Only the people benefited from paternalism loose freedom
Impure: Others loose freedoms, not just the people benefited.
Point: Although P will ALWAYS involve restrictions, those restrictions may not always benefit those affected.
Collective Limitations: CL are similar to paternalism, but different in significant ways.
-CL: although the outcome might be similar/seem like pater. It requires the consent and structured behavior of the members in order to exist and function
Examination of Mill:
-On one hand Mill’s HP seems to categorical ban paternalism, but in almost all of Mill’s philosophy he makes exceptions for things.
- Mill will only allow restriction of freedom on S in order to prevent harm to person B, NOT merely to prevent harm from person A
-Assumes:
- 1) Each person is the best judge of their own life
- 2) Each person is more concerned about themselves than others are.
- SO: Attempts to judge on the behalf of others will have worse consequences then letting people judge for themselves.
-Dworkin: Thinks that that Mill is wrong about 1 and 2
Dworkin’s Own View: Paternalism should be allowed in some cases, and paternalism is sometimes duty.
-When?
- “Paternalism is justified only to preserve a wider range of freedom for the individual in question”
-Children: (duty) the parent has a duty to du what the child would want if the child were an adult (rationality)
- We prevent harms from children and also make them do things they might not like that will create benefits.
-The standard is impartial rationality: “we would be most likely to consent to paternalism in those instances which it preserves an enhances for the individual his ability to rationally consider and carry out his own decisions”
Cases where paternalism is acceptable for “rational adults”
-1) The adult doesn’t know the risk/benefit.
-2) The adult knows, but shows a “weakness of will”
- A) psychological or social pressure.
- B) irrational discounting of danger due to short vs. longterm consequences.