Paternalism
Paternalism refers to the actions taken by individuals, organizations, or governments to influence or restrict the behavior of others, based on the belief that such interventions serve the individuals' best interests. This concept is closely linked to various laws and policies aimed at promoting public health and safety, such as indoor smoking bans, motorcycle helmet laws, and restrictions on junk food in schools. The debate surrounding paternalism often centers on the balance between individual freedom and state intervention, with proponents advocating for these measures as necessary for protecting vulnerable populations and addressing societal issues. Critics, however, argue that paternalism undermines personal autonomy and responsibility, and can perpetuate assumptions of public incompetence. The distinction between self-regarding harm (actions that primarily affect the individual) and other-regarding harm (actions that impact others) is significant in this discussion. Philosophers like John Stuart Mill have argued that limiting personal liberties should only occur to prevent harm to others, not to protect individuals from themselves. Furthermore, paternalist policies can be categorized into hard and soft paternalism, with soft paternalism allowing for some degree of choice while still promoting healthier behaviors, whereas hard paternalism involves outright restrictions that often face significant public resistance.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Paternalism
Paternalism is the effort of an individual, organization, or government to influence or limit the behavior of others in the belief that it is acting in their best interest. The principle of paternalism underlies a number of laws and policies designed to promote public health and safety, including indoor smoking bans and motorcycle-helmet laws. However, paternalist policies often incite debate over the trade-off between individual freedom of choice and state efforts to promote public health, safety, and well-being.
Overview
Paternalist polices, laws, and practices aim to protect or promote the public’s best interests by limiting choices, influencing decisions, or restricting behaviors. Speed limits, laws against drug use, compulsory retirement savings plans, trans-fat bans, vaccination requirements, signs prohibiting swimming without a lifeguard on duty, and the removal of junk food from school vending machines are all examples of paternalist initiatives. Paternalism seeks to promote individuals’ well-being, whether the interference is wanted or not.
Proponents of paternalism argue that such initiatives represent a collective approach to solving society’s most pressing problems and protecting its most vulnerable citizens. Opponents of paternalism argue that such initiatives infringe on personal liberty and autonomy; fail to respect a population’s heterogeneity; diminish learning, self-help, and personal responsibility; and may re-create the same errors that individuals make on a larger, institutional scale. Critics also point to the assumptions of public incompetence, weakness, or impairment that underlie many paternalist laws.
The concept of self-regarding harm versus other-regarding harm is a key element of the debate over paternalism. In his 1859 book On Liberty, British philosopher John Stuart Mill (1806–73) argued that liberties should never be limited except to prevent people from harming others and that an individual endangering his or her own physical or moral well-being is an insufficient reason to restrict his or her personal liberties. Paternalist policies tend to garner more support and meet with less resistance when they are designed to prevent other-regarding harm, such as drunk driving, than when they prevent a self-regarding harm, such as binge drinking.
Other critics make a distinction between hard and soft paternalism. Soft paternalism preserves an individual’s freedom of choice while still influencing behavior. Assessing high taxes on the sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products is an example of soft paternalism designed to dissuade smoking without an outright ban. Disclosures, public-awareness campaigns, and warnings also represent soft paternalism. In contrast, hard paternalism removes freedom of choice through mandates, laws, and bans. This form of paternalism tends to draw more criticism than soft paternalism; for example, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2012 ban on soft drinks larger than sixteen ounces was a hard-paternalist initiative that met with widespread public resistance and was ultimately struck down.
Bibliography
Glod, William. “Against Two Modest Conceptions of Hard Paternalism.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16.2 (2013): 409–22. Print.
Güvercin, Cemal Hüseyin, and Berna Arda. “Parents Refusing Treatment of the Child: A Discussion about Child’s Health Right and Parental Paternalism.” Clinical Ethics 8.2–3 (2013): 52–60. Print.
Holt, Jim. “The New, Soft Paternalism.” New York Times. New York Times, 3 Dec. 2006. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.
McGovern, George. “Whose Life Is It?” New York Times. New York Times, 14 Aug. 1997. Web. 18 Oct. 2013.
Seo, Mi Kyung, Seung Hyun Kim, and MinKyu Rhee. “Coercion in Psychiatric Care: Can Paternalism Justify Coercion?” International Journal of Social Psychiatry 59.3 (2013): 217–23. Print.
“Soft Paternalism: The State Is Looking After You.” Economist. Economist Newspaper, 6 Apr. 2006. Web. 16 Oct. 2013.
Sunstein, Cass R. “The Storrs Lectures: Behavioral Economics and Paternalism.” Yale Law Journal 122.7 (2013): 1826–99. Print.
Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. Rev. ed. London: Penguin, 2009. Print.
Wiley, Lindsay F., Micah L. Berman, and Doug Blanke. “Who’s Your Nanny? Choice, Paternalism and Public Health in the Age of Personal Responsibility.” Supp. to Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 41.1 (2013): 88–91. Print.