Paternalism

Paternalism normally refers to actions of the state—laws or policies—that restrict the freedom of its citizens without their consent for the sake of their own good. Examples might include requiring car passengers to wear seatbelts, prohibiting prostitution and recreational drug use, and some workplace health and safety rules. It raises two main issues, discussed in turn below: first, around identifying whether some act is paternalistic; second, around the nature and limits of individual [Page 475]autonomy, and the appropriate tradeoff (if any) between the freedom of persons to make their own choices about how they will lead their lives and the powers that it is legitimate for a state, operating both coercively and in terms of incentives, to possess.

Identifying genuinely paternalistic policies is difficult both because many seemingly paternalistic policies can be reinterpreted as protecting the interests of third parties and because many policies that have entirely different intentions may incidentally promote the interests of persons whose freedom of action is restricted by them. As an example of the first difficulty, consider the policy that makes it compulsory for motorcyclists to wear helmets. This would appear to be an exemplary instance of paternalism, but the policy can be justified on the basis that if the rider suffers traumatic head injury this may harm others: his emotional and financial dependents, fellow members of his insurance scheme, taxpayers who may support public health services, and so on. As an example of the second difficulty, consider a government that introduces a universal public health system for reasons of justice, fairness, or efficiency. In paying for this system from general taxation, the government in some sense forces its citizens to spend more of their money on insuring against health care costs than they would if left to make their own choices, and this may be good for them, but arguably neither the goal of the policy nor its justification is paternalistic.

One response to these difficulties is to restrict the meaning of paternalism to so-called pure paternalism, which requires that those whose interests are advanced are the same as those whose freedom is restricted (so, a pure paternalist would admit motorcycle helmet laws only if they were intended to promote the interests of the riders themselves). This is theoretically neat, but it may mean excluding some policies that seem genuinely paternalistic but where there is a gap between those protected and those interfered with (cases of so-called impure paternalism). An example might be the government banning a drinks manufacturer from selling “alcopops” (sweet alcohol-based drinks that resemble soft drinks) in order to promote the good of teenagers who would otherwise willingly drink too much.

Debates over paternalism go to the heart of the proper relationship of the state and its citizens. For liberals, in particular, the burden of proof lies with those who would deny to adults the right to make their own decisions and instead treat them as children who are not the best judges of their own interests.

Defenses of paternalism can take a number of forms. One possibility, advanced by moral paternalists, is the protection of a person's moral welfare. For example, a moral paternalist might argue for the prohibition of sadomasochistic activity between consenting adults, not because it might be harmful but because it is morally corrupting. However, this position requires not only justifying interference with others for their own good, but a particular account of the moral good. In conditions of pluralism, this seems too demanding.

...