Overview of Paternalism Law - Term Paper Example

?Overview Paternalism is an act conducted by individuals or governments in the pursuit for societal benefit. Gerald Dworkin, a renowned defines paternalism as the interference of a person’s liberty of actions justified exclusively by reasons referring to welfare good, happiness, needs, interests or values. Dworkin analyzed paternalism from the principles identified by John Stuart Mill on paternalism. According to Dworkin, he refers to the sufficient reasons why paternalism is practiced is because of the assertion that self-protection or prevention of harm to others is a sufficient grounds for justifying paternalism. The other principle used to justify paternalism is that the individual’s own good is not an adequate reason for the termination of paternalism. Several laws and regulations have been enacted that encourage paternalism by the government such as requiring motorcyclist to wear helmets. These actions by the government have been opposed by several utilitarian thinkers like John Stuart Mill. He is opposed to the actions that led to paternalism by the government based on his autonomy based argument. Paternalism exists in the form of restrictions or requirements imposed on people to perform in order for the common good to be maintained. In his topic on liberty, Mill argues that the government encourages cyclists to wear helmets to promote a good (Skorupski, 34). The protection of the person from injury is a good that cannot be ignored and it is not that the cyclist does not value his life, but this legislation goes against another good. In relation to the arguments brought forward by Mill, it is reasonable to conclude that Mill supports government actions. The question of self protection as the basis for justifying paternalism is questionable since an individual is the most qualified person to judge himself/herself. As a result, it true to conclude that an individual is the most interested person in his own well being. This is the interest that nobody else can have and if it is there then the interest is trivial. Mill’s explores the question of paternalism by commenting that human beings are better gainers in suffering others to live as it seems good to them (Skorupski, 95). In reference to Mill’s thoughts, it is reasonable to conclude that Mill would support the action of the government. This is in reference to the fact that Mill argues that no amount of restraint or compulsion by others can stop adults from pursuing their interests. However, in some instances government interventions do not only restrict a person’s liberty but encourages alternative solutions (Blokland, 78). In relation to paternalism, a person should be an independent and an autonomous agent with the ability to choose his freedom. A utilitarian argument passed on by Mill is that of that there comes a time when a person has the discretion of his/her individuality being absolute. However, there are two strains of Mill’s argument with one based on straight forward utilitarian while the other relies, not on the good brought by the free choice but on the supreme value of the choice. Using Mill’s second argument it is important to look into the actions of the government in relation to where consent is not needed in effecting paternalism. Dworkin explores reasons and examples where paternalism is not necessary. It is noteworthy to note that it is true to conclude that paternalism is necessary especially in cases where the actions of an individual cannot be anticipated at that time. For instance, the electorate might vote in a government which in undertaking its activities decides to raise taxes to halt a problem such as inflation. Though the action, of raising taxes is not welcomed easily it is necessary since the measure to be enforced is one requested by the party involved (Blokland, 1997). At the same time, it is noteworthy to note that in some cases there is consent on the part whose liberties have been infringed. Another plausible example is displayed by Odyssey when he commands his men to tie him up and refuse the orders to release him. Using this example we learn paternalism could be used in cases where the consent of the person whose liberties are being infringed. As a result, Dworkin advances the Mill’s thoughts in support for government efforts. In some situations it seems plausible to have paternalistic restrictions to be imposed on people. For instance, if there are reasonable grounds to suppose that the goods such as health one would have so as to pursue his own good (Blokland, 56). There are reasonable grounds for achieving paternalism such as the achievement of compulsory education for the good of the society. One of the biggest problems that face the implementation of paternalism is the fact that is the obstacle of competing needs. The government might outlaw acts such as suicide or the need for blood transfusions in cases where saving lives is important. Dworkin interprets Mill’s second argument of autonomy through stating the different actions that would justify paternalism. One of the issues that arise is whether people have the right to weigh values as being rational or not. For instance, if you consider a person who knows the statistical data of dying or getting injured when he/she is not wearing a seat belt in an automobile (Blokland, 77). If that person insists that he is inconvenienced by wearing a seat belt when he is getting in or out of the vehicle outweighs the possible risks. The weighing between these two values is irrational since he puts a high negative value on inconvenience compared to his life. Acting in a non-rational manner is occurs when people attach incorrect weights to some of their values. In analysing such situations it is necessary to conclude that Dworkin interprets Mill’s thoughts on autonomy by supporting the acts of government in encouraging paternalism (Skorupski, 86). Based on the above reasons the government could argue that implementing incentive programs would encourage people to make the right decisions. As a result, the government has the right to impose some actions on its citizens even if the freedom of that person will be infringed. Paternalism in most instances is practiced where it is found necessary to compel some people to practice some acts. In the case of competing goods, there is a necessity of employing paternalism since people have a tendency of weighing between selected values. In some cases, people behave based on cognitive delusions whereby they act against the expressed will of the person involved. For example, Robert Nozick’s example that if a man believes that he can fly if he jumps out of a window then should we not detain him if it possible. In such situations it is necessary for the government to practice paternalism in protection of the people/citizens (Blokland, 1997). Paternalism does affect the freedom and liberty of a person, but there are cases where the use of this act would be necessary. For example, if an individual does not seem to make sense based on his/her actions it is important for paternalism to be realized. Although through the autonomy based argument, Mills argues that independence and autonomy are better desired and handled at a personal level. This argument is limited to specific decisions and acts that may be analyzed and for the decisions to be deemed reasonable (Skorupski, 102). In some situations, according to Mill’s argument on autonomy, he argues that government incentive programs are necessary since the victims might agree with the government’s decisions. A decision involving the intake or usage of drugs is an example of such a situation because drugs are psychologically addictive and destructive. Based on these reasons, it is necessary for the government to practice paternalism. Works Cited Blokland, Hans. Freedom and culture in Western society. Boston, MA: Pelshiver, 1997. Print. Skorupski, John. John Stuart Mill. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1989. Print. Read More