Let us say that we prevent people from making cigarettes because we believe they are harmful to consumers. The group we are trying to protect is the consumer group, not the manufacturers (who may not be smokers at all). The reason we interfere with the manufacturer is that it causes harm to others. However, the basic justification is paternalistic because the consumer (provided that the relevant information is available) consents to the damage. It is not that we are preventing manufacturers from polluting the air. In pure paternalism, the class to be protected is identical to the class to which it is questioned, for example by preventing swimmers from swimming in the absence of lifeguards. In the case of impure paternalism, the category of aggrieved persons is larger than the protected category. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Harm, Paternalism & Moralism) Admittedly, it is not always easy to distinguish between legal moralism and moral paternalism. If, like Plato, it is believed that a wrong deed harms the soul of the one who does it, then it will be possible to invoke moral paternalism rather than juridical moralism.

The important thing is that there are two different justifications that are possible; One invokes the mere immorality of the disturbed conduct, the other the damage caused to the character of the agent. For Shiffrin, paternalistic actions need not conflict with an agent`s actual desires. If you hide my cigarettes while I`m trying to quit, you`re treating me in a paternalistic way, even though it`s my wish to quit smoking anyway. Moreover, a paternalistic person does not even need to be motivated by concern for the welfare or interests of the paternalized agent. Return to El Capitan; If a ranger refuses to let you climb because they care about your spouse and children, they are taking control of a decision that is in your area, but not because they care about your well-being. For Shiffrin, all that is necessary for paternalism is for the paternalist to take control of something that is in the agent`s own judgment. This article examines some of the conceptual issues associated with the analysis of paternalism, and then discusses normative issues regarding the legitimacy of paternalism by the state and various civil institutions. If one believes that paternalism is sometimes justified, one can do so for a variety of theoretical reasons. The broadest is simply consequentialist, that is, more good than evil is produced. A narrower justification is that sometimes the (long-term) autonomy of the individual is favored by limiting his autonomy (short-term). Thus, people could be discouraged from taking mind-destroying drugs on the grounds that it destroys their autonomy and prevents them from doing so in order to preserve it.

This is essentially Mill`s argument against allowing people to lock themselves into slavery. Note that if the theory of the good associated with a particular consequentialism is broad enough, that is, it includes autonomy as one of the goods, it can correspond to the theory of autonomy (provided that the structure of the view of autonomy is maximizing). Recall that Dworkin argued that paternalism is only justified for decisions that have far-reaching, potentially dangerous and irreversible consequences. The decision to end one`s life is certainly a far-reaching decision that has irreversible consequences – but is it potentially dangerous? To be potentially dangerous, it seems that the quality of life must be somewhat compromised. But it could be argued that Fred`s quality of life would not be diminished by death, since there is no life at all in death. While loved ones` emotional states may be in disarray for a while, removing the burden of caring for a terminally ill person improves the overall quality of their lives. Since the potentially dangerous aspect for the deceased is not present, Dworkin`s argument also does not support a prohibition on physician-assisted suicide. Is paternalism associated with a burden of proof? Should the paternalist or the anti-paternalist give a reason for his actions? As we have seen, the analysis of paternalism seems to go both ways. This is an encroachment on freedom which might be assumed to place the burden of proof on the boss. It is an act intended to bring good to the actor, which could be supposed to put the burden of proof on those who resist paternalism. One might think, like Mill, that the burden of proof is different depending on who is treated paternalisticly.

If it is a child, then the assumption is that if all other things are equal, the burden of proof lies with those who resist paternalism. If it is a sane adult, the assumption is reversed.