Coercive Paternalism Analysis

Coercive Paternalism

In the philosophical reading Sarah Conly argues that it can be morally permissible to coerce people into doing what is good for their own health. In other words, “Conly defends the state power to insure that people lead lives that are more likely to achieve their own goals and ends” (Davis 1). First Conly thinks there are limits to our cognation as in we can make mistakes in our reasoning at conscious and unconscious levels which stop us from reaching our long term goals. Conly believes that people need help in changing their behavior and many of those bad behavioral problems come from things people do to themselves. She uses the form of coercive paternalism to demonstrate a better form of paternalism than the “soft paternalism”

that we so often use today. Conly suggest that sometimes using soft paternalism, such as writing a clear warning on a product, is not always efficient enough in persuading people to make the right decisions in terms of their own health. Conly agrees that coercive paternalism is justifiable in many cases regarding the promotion of peoples long term goals. She believes that coercing people to do what is good for them, and represents their long term goals, seems to respect their values rather than disrespecting them. Conly uses many examples to get across to the reader her views on coercive paternalism. Many of her examples include New York dietary bans which prevent people from being able to purchase unhealthy amounts of food and/or dietary supplements in food that prevent an individual from living a healthy life. She explains that
York 2
banning these products are a form of coercive paternalism and these actions are a morally permissible action by the state. “Conly makes a case that this does not insult our sense of worth or show disrespect to us - pointing out that we are being unrealistic in our understanding of what we can and cannot do is not disrespectful, but is instead honest and accurate” (Butkus 1). In other words Conly is saying that during this case people sometimes make irrational choices that effect their long term goals and banning these substances is rather the honest truth than being disrespectful to ones freedom of choice.
I will argue Conlys' view on the example of the New York soda ban and that it is not morally permissible to use coercive paternalism in this case.

During the New York soda ban the city produced a regulation banning restaurants and similar venues from serving soda and other sugary drinks over 16 ounces. Conly explains that this is a justifiable action “because there is an obvious obesity epidemic, and there is considerable evidence linking this back to increased portion sizes in restaurants” (Conly 243). I believe that the government does not have a role to protect people from themselves. “Justified hard paternalism” equates the government with being every citizens father, which defeats the purpose of being a free country. From a freedom prospective, there is not a clear distinction as to where you draw the line when telling citizens that it is a good or bad decision for there happiness and well-being. Conly might argue that we protect each other from hurting one another so there is no difference in stopping one another from hurting our own self. Hurting another person is a far stretch from hurting yourself when it comes to drinking too much soda because you are making the decision for yourself and the value of your future. For example, going to church is universally good for every single person in the world, and as a father I will make my children go to church, but if we are a lawmaker in

this
york 3
situation it would not be “justifiable hard paternalism” in the form of mandatory church attendance.

Conly also states that, “it is not at all clear that people really want these large sizes. We know that much of our eating is ‘mindless’: we finish the portion that is put in front of us, not so

much out of a positive desire to eat it, but because it is there” (Conly 243). This statement is not only an assumption but cannot be tide to morally permissible of an action by the state to ban these portions of food because we do not know if people have a positive desire to eat the food in front of them or not. Sense we do not know what the desire of the person eating the food, Conly might argue that there is no difference in assuming one desire from the other. If that is the case then might point stands that you can't qualify that as morally permissible to every person who sits down to eat their food. I personally eat until I am full and stop there whether there is food left on the plate or not and i'm sure i'm not the only one who has that approach. In this case it would be a more justifiable action to use soft paternalism because you are warning the consumer of the products long term effects while reaching everyones reason for eating their food whether it be just because it is in front of us or to fill our

stomachs.
Another way to look at the example of the New York soda ban is to imagine you go to the recreational swimming pool to cool off. There is no life guard there but there is a sign that reads, “no life guard, swim at your own risk”. Most people are going to jump right in and swim knowing the risk that if they some how drown there will be no one there to save them. This is the same concept as the soda ban. The only difference in the two, is the swimming pull example uses soft paternalism to warn the swimmer of the dangers in swimming in the pool without a life guard rather than banning the drink in the case of the New York soda ban. Now think if the pool
York 4
decided to ban swimming in the pool because there was no life guard to supervise the swimmers. There would more than likely be a public outrage that comes with that decision. Conly might argue that the soda ban is actually helping the person live a happy and valuable life because they are not drinking that unhealthy amount of soda that interferes with their well-being. That argument would not justify coercive paternalism because we do not know whether drinking that large proportion of soda or even using tobacco is what makes that person any less happy that is enjoying cooling off in the pool.
In this paper I have argued Conly and her few on the New York soda ban. I have argued that it is not morally permissible to use coercive paternalism in this case but it is rather a morally permissible action to use soft paternalism. Sarah Conly believes that coercive paternalism is a more effective way to stop people from making decisions that will allow them to live a healthier life. This very well could be true, but because it is an effective way to making someone live a healthy life it just not make the action of doing so morally permissible. In this paper I am not arguing that soda is not bad for you or certain substances in food are not bad for you. I even agree that large portions of food is not healthy for anyone to eat but I am arguing that making the decision for someone not to participate in something that is a legal action is not morally permissible. I am a huge advocate of freedom of choice and the issue I have with coercive paternalism is that it violates the human right of a person to have the freedom of choice.