Mill's Arguments Against Paternalism

John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin seem to have different viewpoints about paternalism. Paternalism is interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by appeals to welfare or good or happiness or needs. John Stuart Mill seems to be against paternalism since there’s no justification, while Gerald Dworkin claims that it’s justifiable. The question that I will answer is the following: Is paternalism morally justified? And should it be implemented or not? I will argue against paternalism and that it’s not morally justified and that it should not be implemented. It’s not morally justified because it limits our liberties, in which we cannot fully express who we truly are. In order to have a better understanding, I will start the essay

by going straight into the argument against paternalism. Then I will continue to mentioning Mill’s two primary supporting theories for anti-paternalism, which are the harm principle and utilitarianism, and his justifications for anti-paternalism in which he mentions in the book On Liberty. Next, I will continue on with Dworkin’s definition of the harm principle, and the distinction between pure and impure paternalism. Finally, I will also mention Dworkin’s argument for the justification of paternalism. I will talk about the cases that both Dworkin and Mill mention about how paternalism limits a persons’ liberty.
Argument Against Paternalism:
John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin both have different perspectives of paternalism.

As I have mentioned earlier, Mill is against paternalism and Dworkin claims that paternalism is justifiable. Now to answer the question that was proposed earlier, is paternalism morally justified? And should it be implemented or not? In this case I would have to argue against that paternalism is not morally justified and it should not be implemented. I will agree with Mill’s idea about what the harm principle is and it states that a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. A person is free to do whatever they please. We all have liberty and we can decide what we want to do with that. Mill focuses on the three basic categories of liberty: 1. Liberties of conscience and expression. 2. Liberties of taste, pursuits, and life-plans. 3. Liberties of association. Note here that Mill does not defend liberty per se (by itself), but only with certain basic liberties of it. Basic liberties are not intrinsically good per se, but only conditional intrinsic good. Basic liberties are intrinsically valuable but only when various necessary conditions. And we can also say that liberties are necessary conditions to exercise of our higher capacities. But these liberties are limited by the harm

principle.
What the harm principle does is that harm justifies restricting liberty to engage in action that cause harm, or threaten imminent harm to others. The harm principle is used to justify the interference and limitation of liberty when it prevents harm to un-consenting others and that the use of coercion should be enforced to protect others. Mill mentions that individuals know their own interests better than those who impose paternalism on them and human beings are in their nature and the rules that restrict their behavior are ineffective. Mill also mentions autonomy, meaning the freedom to decide what to do. Mill brings up a case about slavery. In which it says that a person is selling himself to be a slave, in which he abdicates his liberty, giving up everything that can make him act freely. In this case, we can see that Mil makes an exception, and in this part he does not reject paternalism. Since, a person is has given up their freedom to be in a controlled environment and have no more liberty. An example brought up by David Brink, is a marriage contract, in which a woman consent to her marriage and gives up her rights (being controlled) over to the husband. Makes a similar connection with the slavery example of Mill.
Paternalism prevents the greater good by preventing individual learning about what the good life is for them. By not experimenting what there is out there in the world, we would live a sheltered life. By having paternalism they make all the decisions for us, we would not want to know what the world has to offer because it would be considered frowned upon. For example, we have a box of chocolates, we can look and smell the chocolates; but society says to not eat the chocolates because they make us fat. How would we know from our personal experience that we could get fat by eating chocolates if we had never experienced it ourselves, but rather we were told what they do. We may know the physical characteristics, the smell and what they may taste like; but we would never know what they truly taste like, until we experience it ourselves.
Some people might say that paternalism is justifiable because it restricts the peoples’ liberties and we can have that sense of security that people would be kept in line. By having paternalism, we can restrict a person’s liberty of doing some sort of harm to oneself or others. Limiting one’s liberties isn’t entirely immoral; it’s actually quite helpful. For example, some laws forbidding various forms of gambling, or making suicide a criminal defense. That way they can limit on what people can gamble, they can protect one from going overboard with the wasting of money on certain games and they can also monitor what kind of gaming people do. By making suicide a criminal defense, they can protect a person from committing suicide. That way they if the person trying to commit suicide does not succeed. Then the law would be treating them like a criminal, because they tried to take their own life away. That would be considered hurting themselves, in which paternalism is against, but rather it’s for the protection. I’m not saying these are dreadful laws and that we should not follow them, because that is not the case. But rather, all I’m saying is that paternalism is limiting our freedoms and we may never have that pleasant experience until, we experience it ourselves.
Paternalism is not morally justified because it would have to take account of a person’s autonomy and liberty. Without liberty we would be restricted to many things that we cannot do and without autonomy it would make our lives boring and uninteresting. With autonomy it makes my life valuable and it also gives me those experiences that I need to and to try what’s out there. Since paternalism is only justified to restrict a person’s liberty it causes harm to others, and it’s not letting the people to express themselves. I do not think that paternalism should be implemented, because then it would restrict everyone’s liberties. It would be like if we were enclosed in a box and had no way of coming out of the box to see what’s out there. We would not know how to handle things in certain situations, because we would lack the knowledge of what to do.
Mill’s Theory:
John Stuart Mill was a strong believer for not accepting paternalism. According to Mill, paternalism is when a state or an individual interfere with a person’s liberty against their will, in an effort to protect them against self-regarding harm. In order to support his claims he makes supporting theories for rejecting paternalism, which is the harm principle and utilitarianism. Mill’s concept of the harm principle is
“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others”(Culver258).
Meaning that a state or an individual can limit another person’s liberty in an effort to protect the person from self-harm, since it justifies the restricting of liberty to engage in actions that threaten imminent harm to others. As a utilitarian, Mill tries to find the best possible outcome for the greatest number of people therefore he rejects paternalism. Mill holds to account that individuals know their own interest best.
As he believes that no one knows or cares more about an individual’s interest, than the individual. If we use paternalism, Mill thinks that it’s limiting an agent’s liberty, because that would mean that we are denying an agent some certain rights that they have on liberty. An agent has their own freedom and they can choose what they want and do not like. We are rational beings who are perfectly capable of choosing. Freedom is an essential for the development of each of the agents’ personality, individuality and to have more enriching lifestyles. Having paternalism limits the agents activities and it would mean that the agents incompetent to make rational decisions about their own life. Which agents would feel like they have lost their dignity, since all the decisions are made for them. Meaning that they lose their ability to think and choose for themselves.
Dworkin’s View:
Gerald Dworkin’s view of paternalism is different than John Stuart Mill’s. Dworkin defines paternalism as “ the interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by reasons referring exclusively to the welfare, good, happiness, needs, interests, or values of the person being coerced”(Culver253). Meaning that paternalism is justified if it interferes with a person’s well being or it may harm others. Dworkin says that paternalism is justifiable under two conditions: when it protects against irrational propensities, which are cognitive and emotional capacity and ignorance. Also, when the decisions are dangerous. In order to have a better understanding, he mentions key points, which are pure paternalism and impure paternalism. Pure paternalism is “the class of persons whose freedom is restricted is identical with the class of persons whose benefit is intended to be promoted by such restrictions”(Culver273). Which this would seat belt laws, laws against suicides, laws not allowing a defense to charge a murderer or assault of a victim and many others. These would be examples of laws that restrict the liberty of an individual.