Liberty And Paternalism Essays -- essays research papers

LIBERTY AND PATERNALISMJohn Stuart hoagie and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of an new(prenominal) person is violated or put at luck. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more good to society than deciding for him what is in his dress hat interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the disturbance of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks Mills argument down into two distinct types, one based on utilitarianism and one based on the infinite value of free choice. After reading both articles, Paternalism by Dworkin and On Liberty by Mill, I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some interve ntion is necessary under certain circumstances. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, but also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the protection of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to interfere with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governments main reasons for existence is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will live of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of my proposed conclusion. Before addressing any opposing views to my conclusion, I will first explain my reasoning. As Dworkin explains in his essay, there are circumstances when a person is unable to make a rational and logi cal decision for himself. The inability to make such decisions has yen been a justified reason to interfere in the process, such as in cases with young children. When a young child is about to run crosswise a busy street in order to chase his ball, the childs parent, or any other bystander, is compensate richly justified in... ...f such a decision, the government has aright to step in and help the person. This is because at this generalizeing of the situation, the person is not capable of making a decision that he would presumable consent to at after fully understanding the situation. As in the seat belt case, often times, a person does not fully understand that not corrosion a seat belt contradicts his true desires and that no possible good or benefit can come from not wearing it. However, when a person is making a rational decision between two things that he values, he is the only person that can decide which is best for him. An important condition to remember in this conclu sion is that all of this is assuming that no other individuals are being harmed or put at risk by the actions of these people. Under this condition I have come to the conclusion that there do exist certain circumstances where the government has a right to legal paternalism. These circumstances include times when an individual is unable to make a rational and logical decision for himself either because he does not fully understand the issue or because he is unable to logically assign value to specific possible consequences of a decision.