The Journal of Ethics

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 421–439 | Cite as

Paternalism and the Ill-Informed Agent

Article

Abstract

Most anti-paternalists claim that informed and competent self-regarding choices are protected by autonomy, while ill-informed or impaired self-regarding choices are not. Joel Feinberg, among many others, argues that we can in this way distinguish impermissible “hard” paternalism from permissible “soft” paternalism. I argue that this view confronts two related problems in its treatment of ill-informed decision-makers. First, it faces a dilemma when applied to decision-makers who are responsible for their ignorance: it either permits too much, or else too little, intervention to satisfy its proponents. Second, the most promising rationales in favor of the view ignore the distinction between an agent’s voluntarily bringing about some state of affairs, on the one hand, and an agent’s voluntarily assuming a risk, on the other. I conclude that a decision-maker’s ignorance is irrelevant to the permissibility of intervention on her behalf. If it is permissible to intervene in a given ill-informed choice, it would be permissible to intervene in an otherwise similar but informed choice, at least provided that intervention would produce similar benefits in both cases. This shows that we should sometimes accept straightforwardly paternalistic rationales.

Keywords

Autonomy Joel Feinberg Intervention Paternalism 

References

  1. Archard, David. 1994. For our own good. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 72: 283–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arneson, Richard. 1980. Mill versus paternalism. Ethics 90: 470–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arneson, Richard. 2005. Joel Feinberg and the justification of hard paternalism. Legal Theory 11: 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchamp, Tom. 1977. Paternalism and biobehavioral control. Monist 60: 62–80.Google Scholar
  5. Boonin, David. 2003. A defense of abortion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Damelio, Jennifer, and Kelly Sorensen. 2008. Enhancing autonomy in paid surrogacy. Bioethics 22: 269–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Marneffe, Peter. 2010. Liberalism and prostitution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Dworkin, Gerald. 1971. Paternalism. In Morality and the law, ed. Richard Wasserstrom, 107–126. Belmont: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  9. Dworkin, Gerald. 1988. The theory and practice of autonomy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feinberg, Joel. 1986. Harm to self. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gert, Bernard, and Charles M. Culver. 1976. Paternalistic behavior. Philosophy & Public Affairs 6: 45–57.Google Scholar
  12. Goldman, Michael, and Alan Goldman. 1990. Paternalistic laws. Philosophical Topics 18: 65–78.Google Scholar
  13. Hanna, Jason. 2011a. Paternalism and Impairment. Social Theory and Practice 37: 434–460.Google Scholar
  14. Hanna, Jason. 2011b. Consent and the Problem of Framing Effects. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14: 517–531.Google Scholar
  15. Hodson, John. 1977. The principle of paternalism. American Philosophical Quarterly 14: 61–69.Google Scholar
  16. Hodson, John. 1981. Mill, paternalism, and slavery. Analysis 41: 60–62.Google Scholar
  17. Hurd, Heidi. 1996. The moral magic of consent. Legal Theory 2: 121–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Husak, Douglas. 2010. Paternalism and consent. In The ethics of consent, ed. Franklin Miller, and Alan Wertheimer, 107–130. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Kuflik, Arthur. 2010. Hypothetical consent. In The ethics of consent, ed. Franklin Miller, and Alan Wertheimer, 131–161. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Malm, Heidi. 2005. Feinberg’s anti-paternalism and the balancing strategy. Legal Theory 11: 193–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mill, J.S. 1859/1991. On liberty. In On liberty and other essays, ed. John Gray, 5–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. New, Bill. 1999. Paternalism and public policy. Economics and Philosophy 15: 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Sankowski, Edward. 1985. ‘Paternalism’ and social policy. American Philosophical Quarterly 22: 1–12.Google Scholar
  24. Sartorius, Rolf. 1983. Paternalistic grounds for involuntary civil commitment: a utilitarian perspective. In Paternalism, ed. Rolf Sartorius, 95–102. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  25. Savulescu, Julian. 1994. Rational desires and the limitation of life-sustaining treatment. Bioethics 8: 191–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scoccia, Danny. 1990. Paternalism and Respect for Autonomy. Ethics 100: 318–334.Google Scholar
  27. Scoccia, Danny. 2008. In defense of hard paternalism. Law and Philosophy 27: 351–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Scoccia, Danny. 2010. Physician-assisted suicide, disability, and paternalism. Social Theory and Practice 36: 479–498.Google Scholar
  29. Shiffrin, Seana. 2000. Paternalism, unconscionability doctrine, and accommodation. Philosophy & Public Affairs 29: 205–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Sunstein, Cass, and Richard Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. University of Chicago Law Review 70: 1159–1202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trout, J.D. 2005. Paternalism and cognitive bias. Law and Philosophy 24: 393–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. VanDeVeer, Donald. 1986. Paternalistic intervention: The moral bounds of benevolence. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Wall, Steven. 2009. Self-ownership and paternalism. The Journal of Political Philosophy 17: 399–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wertheimer, Alan. 1987. Coercion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Zimmerman, David. 2002. Taking liberties: The perils of ‘moralizing’ freedom and coercion in social theory and practice. Social Theory and Practice 28: 577–609.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PhilosophyNorthern Illinois UniversityDeKalbUSA

Personalised recommendations