Types[ edit ] Soft and hard[ edit ] Soft Paternalism is the view that paternalism is only justified if an action to be committed is involuntary. John Stuart Mill gives the example of a person about to walk across a damaged bridge.
Soft paternalism refers to the notion that the only conditions under which the state is entitled to intervene in individual decision-making are those in which an individual is considered to be making decisions that are either involuntary or ill-informed.
Intervention is only justifiable to the extent that the person needs to be protected from harm to which they did not consent, or to ascertain whether or not they are in fact acting voluntarily and knowledgeably.
Broad paternalism refers to any paternalist action, regardless of who performs it, whereas narrow paternalism refers exclusively to state paternalism—that is, the use of legal coercion. Weak paternalism is used by some to describe paternalists who consider it legitimate to interfere with the means through which a person is seeking to achieve a particular objective or preference if it is believed that these means will not achieve their desired ends for example, restricted access to a particular medical treatment deemed to be ineffective.
This approach would impact on the whole tobacco industry in terms of the manufacture, distribution and sale of the product.
Some paternalism theorists also differentiate between moral paternalism and welfare paternalism. This form of paternalism marks something of a return to policies of the past which sought to control the lifestyles of the poor. Firstly, whereas old paternalism was primarily about restricting access to welfare support, new paternalism does not seek to shut people out of aid but, rather, to use aid as a means to an end; that is, to ensure compliance with certain forms and standards of behaviour in order to achieve a designated—often longer-term—benefit or good.
Perhaps the most familiar example is that of moving people off welfare and into work for the social benefit of economic participation and the personal good of enhanced self-esteem and autonomy.
These organisations sought to promote education or moral improvement among poor people, usually at a local level and often through closed institutions. Generally, under the orthodox approach, welfare was provided on the basis of entitlement as a right and recipients were more or less left to choose their own course in life without state interference.
These policies emphasise the conditionality of welfare support. The first of these grounds is based on the notion that the rightness of an action is determined by its consequences. The second ground insists that allowing people the freedom to exercise choice is not only the best way to maximise utility, but also of intrinsic value; that is, it is good for individuals to be able to exercise choice because this enables them to cultivate and exercise moral autonomy.
Moral hazard refers to the idea that an arrangement, which promises people a benefit on the occurrence of certain events, will cause a change in behaviour to make these events more likely. A commonly-cited example of moral hazard is that arising from insurance.
In relation to paternalist interventions, the argument is sometimes made that state interventions to protect people from risk lead them to believe that they are safe and to undertake riskier behaviours as a result.
Typically, then, there is a strong presumption against paternalist policies in liberal societies. However, according to Mill, where people are considered to be incompetent to make decisions in their own interests, the harm principle permits paternalist intervention.
Perhaps the most obvious recent Australian example of a paternalist policy that could be said to have invoked the harm principle is the policy of income management.
In short, the policy seeks not only to further the perceived interests of affected income support recipients themselves, but also to prevent harm to their unconsenting children as well as to the general community.
Thus, in reference to the plight of children, Indigenous leader, Noel Pearson has suggested that critics of income management should: For the purposes of this paper perhaps the key area of disagreement relates to the question of which acts can be said to harm only the person whose behaviour is in question.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to identify an act that harms an individual that does not also harm others, even if this is only indirectly and remotely. While this person may very well have consented to the risks of riding without a helmet, and thought that the act was private and self-regarding, many people who did not consent are likely to be harmed by the act.
As philosopher, Peter Suber argues: We can prohibit eating fatty foods on the same grounds.This kind of religious paternalism, based on a theological conception of the individual good, exists today in a number of theocratic Islamic societies and occasionally rears its head even in relatively secular societies.
This view is often closely related, although not identical, to moral paternalism.
Pornography, for example, is often banned to protect both its producers and consumers from its allegedly harmful . Full-Text Paper (PDF): Libertarian Paternalism Is an Oxymoron. This essay considers the concept of libertarian paternalism recently advanced by Sunstein and Thaler and argues that, on close.
12 A libertarian paternalist uses the norm defined by the best individual choice and a welfarist’s norm is based on the best choice that can be made for the society.
In both cases, there exists an objective norm and individual behaviours have to be influenced, oriented with regards to that norm.
Libertarian paternalist strategies for PSA screening View Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar; I have a comparison of libertarian and paternalist view on society been teaching a seminar in classical liberalism at the What are your thoughts a comparison of libertarian and paternalist view on society on the modern libertarian.
A libertarian society can only be brought about by forcing it upon those who currently force people do do things. Thus libertarianism is all about using force. In fact, libertarianism is tyranny.
Libertarian paternalism is the idea that it is both possible and legitimate for private and public institutions to affect behavior while also respecting freedom of choice, as well as the implementation of that idea.