|
Paternalism refers to a policy that prevents others from doing harm to themselves or a belief in such policies. For example, someone would be practicing a paternalistic philosophy by using force or threat of punishment to prevent another person from committing suicide, from taking addictive or harmful drugs, or from committing any action considered harmful by the paternalist. Similarly, a paternalist may argue that he or she is acting to serve the long-term wants or needs of another or a group of people even those these alleged beneficiaries may disagree. A paternalist, then, by definition, believes that he knows more (or is more rational) than the person he is trying to prevent from (allegedly) harming herself. However, the paternalist, in so doing, limits or undermines the freedom of choice of the person "harming" herself in exchange for her well-being. In other words, the paternalist is using a position of power over others to make decisions for them.
Many accept or even praise paternalism when it is applied by parents to their children. But a key issue concerns who should and should not be treated like children. Young adults often complain about paternalism, as do people with diabilities, the "mentally ill", and the "mentally retarded". Racism involves a tremendous amount of paternalism toward ethnic minorities (such as African-Americans in the United States), just as sexism involves male paternalism toward women.
In many cases, however, charges of "paternalism" may be merely a matter of opinion and/or depend on the empirical details of the case being discussed. After all, an individual's "free choice" to commit suicide, take harmful drugs, etc. may have external costs, severely harming other people without their choosing to suffer those costs. For example, suicides and drug-abusers often damage their families' and neighbors' finances and lives. Nonetheless, the critique of paternalism makes a very valid point: it is very important to take the other individual's conscious intentions into account and to involve that person in decision-making in a democratic way, i.e., as a peer. Otherwise, even perceptions of paternalism encourage resentment and resistance. Further, instead of top-down solutions to (say) drug-abuse using incarceration and the like, less paternalistic methods such as medical treatment should be encouraged.
Since most people agree that paternalism is to be avoided if possible, the alternatives should be mentioned. Individual autonomy is one: instead of forcing someone not to take harmful or addictive drugs, try to talk him or her out of it but leave the decision to the individual. A second is democracy, mentioned above: the citizenry as a whole may decide to apply anti-drug rules to themselves. They may choose to listen to "experts" on the subject without letting those experts impose paternalistic rules and methods.
Examples
Governments are often faced with the choice of adopting various kinds of paternalistic legislation. For many, a classic example of this is the seatbelt law. If not wearing a seatbelt has no harmful effects on others, it can be reasonably argued that such a law is a paternalistic and unjustified infringement on a person's liberty. However, it may also be argued that such laws minimize the harm to those who crash their cars into those who drive without seatbelts and that injuries arising from nonuse of seatbelts lead to higher auto insurance premia for all drivers. (Encouraging adults to wear seatbelts also creates models of behavior for those for whom most would agree that paternalism is valid, i.e., children.) In that case, the charges of paternalism must again be balanced against the perceived social cost of the undesired activity in democratic decision-making, while less paternalistic solutions should be sought.
Often, social-welfare programs such as Aid to Families with Dependent Children or Temporary Aid to Needy Families [1] (http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/) (which replaced A.F.D.C.) in the United States are extremely paternalistic, in that they impose all sorts of bureaucratic or top-down restrictions on the freedom of recipients of this kind of government help.
Among the most controversial of these issues in which charges of "paternalism" are made concern the ban on gay marriage, laws against sodomy, anti-abortion laws, gun control, policies such as curfews that are at odds with the youth rights movement, and the illegal status of marijuana. Among the most famous examples of a massive failure of perceived paternalism was the era of Prohibition in the United States.
It is not just governments which suffer from paternalism. For example, a large corporation may make decisions that have large social costs -- such as pollution costs -- on the neighborhoods of its operations and the world. Corporate defenders embrace a paternalistic philosophy when they argue that the benefits of corporate activities -- including those that produce the pollution -- will lead to net benefits for those affected, that the benefits will " trickle down" to others, etc. Employers often use paternalistic arguments to justify rules and restrictions on their employees' activities. Similarly, non-governmental or quasi-governmental organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are being paternalistic when they argue that the short-term pain suffered (most by the poor and working classes) due to their neo-liberal policies of austerity, privatization, free flow of capital, and the like are more than justfied by the long-term benefits to these populations. That is, though the laissez-faire philosophy of "free markets" is not paternalistic per se, it can be imposed in a paternalistic way.
Even an individual may use paternalistic arguments to justify his or her activities. For example, someone who smokes tobacco may try to minimize the effects of second-hand smoke on others by saying "they can live with it" or similar.
Even when organizations or individuals are being charitable, paternalism can be involved. For example, in some places, people are encouraged to give homeless people vouchers which can only be spent on food and the like, rather than cash, which might be spent on alcohol or drugs. While this may be a good program in many ways, it involves paternalism in that it denies the homeless individual freedom of choice.
Philosophical background
Opponents of paternalism, such as John Stuart Mill, claim that liberty supersedes safety in terms of actions that only affect oneself. Advocates of paternalistic policies often believe that they possess some sort of "higher" knowledge than those whose behaviour they seek to limit, such as a religious, ethical, or philosophical doctrine, and will argue that while it is not moral to deprive someone of their liberty in a general situation, it is correct in that specific instance.
In favour, it could be said that every state is "paternalist" to a degree. Even the state's creation and protection of individual property rights might be interpreted as "paternalistic". The descriptions of the origin of the state by Aristotle see it as an extension of the family and this description seems a lot more realistic than the social contract analogies of Locke, Rousseau and Rawls. The word comes from paternal authority and there lies one of its best jusitifications: if it is considered that someone under the age of 18 may be very intelligent and responsible, yet still forbidden from smoking, drinking, buying violent films, etc., it has to be asked why a person over the age of 18 who is much less intelligent and responsible is allowed to do so. To claim that the less able members of society should be watched over could be seen as a responsibility rather than tyranny.
Libertarians are known as the most fervent opponents of paternalism. Their ideology is certainly consistent, although critics claim that it is excessively simple. Few political theorists have ever completely rejected paternalism. Robert Nozick -- who is generally seen as a founding father of modern libertarianism -- still talked of exceptional cases of immoral behaviour where society should intervene. John Stuart Mill said that some offensive behaviour that could take place in private should be banned in public (e.g., sexual acts). Mill also said that anyone who commits a crime whilst drunk should be banned from drinking thereafter. Schopenhauer claimed that the state should be restricted to "protecting men from each other and from external attack", yet he lived in 19th century Germany and seemed to be mainly criticising laws that promoted Christian ethics in his political writings.
Paternalism and Abortion
Whilst those who are in favor of legal abortion see a ban on it as paternalistic, many who are pro-life claim that they are, on the contrary, upholding the individual rights of the foetus against violation.
|
