Paternalism vs. Individual Rights

1
Paternalism vs. Individual Rights
2
Tutorial change

• Group 9 tutorials
• Oct. 1 changed to Oct. 8
• Oct. 8 will discuss Thank You For Smoking
• New dates Sept. 17, Oct. 8, Oct. 22, Nov. 5,
  Nov. 19

3
Portfolio reminder

• You must write a short answer (2 pages) to one
  question on each of 8 movies (out of 10).
• Due at the end of the course.
• 50 of your grade
• Assessment summary
• Class presentation in tutorial 20
• Tutorial participation 30
• Portfolio 50

4
Paternalism

• We know whats best for you.
• The state should protect people from themselves.
• The state is modeled after the family
• Very popular historical understanding of the
  states relationship to its citizens
• Aristotle compared the family to the state, the
  head of household to the monarch, the wife,
  children and slaves to the subjects

5

• Confucius
• Five relationships
• 1) Ruler to Subject
• 2) Father to Son
• 3) Husband to Wife
• 4) Elder Brother to Younger Brother
• 5) Friend to Friend
• In every relationship except friend to friend,
  the relationship is hierarchical, with the former
  using his wisdom and power to govern, guide and
  protect the latter.

6
Individual Rights

• John Stuart Mill
• On Liberty 1859
• Rejected paternalism in favor of freedom
• Proposed the harm principle
• That principle is, that 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. His own good, either
  physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He
  cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear
  because it will be better for him to do so,
  because it will make him happier, because, in the
  opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or
  even right... The only part of the conduct of
  anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is
  that which concerns others. In the part which
  merely concerns himself, his independence is, of
  right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body
  and mind, the individual is sovereign.

7
Justification of the Harm Principle

• Utilitarianism (Mill)
• Mills view if the harm principle is followed,
  the greatest good for the greatest number will
  result
• Problem is that true? What if violating rights
  leads to an increase in the general welfare? E.g.
  putting an innocent person in jail to avoid
  violent riots, likely deaths
• Lockean justification
• People by nature are free and equal
• Everyone has an inborn right to life
• and liberty

8
The Declaration of Independence

• We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
  all men are created equal, that they are endowed
  by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
  that among these are Life, Liberty and the
  pursuit of Happiness
• Self-evident
• Known to be true by immediate understanding or by
  definition and requiring no proof or explanation,
  e.g. I think therefore I am
• Obviously true to all right-thinking people, esp.
  morally self-evident
• Inalienable
• Cannot be denied, surrendered
• or taken away

9
Concrete issues regarding paternalism vs.
individual rights

• Suicide/euthanasia
• Motorcycle helmets
• Smoking in public places
• Smoking privately
• Illegal drugs, e.g. marijuana, cocaine, heroin
• Refusing life-saving medical treatment on
  religious grounds for yourself/your children

10
Freedom of speech

• In the ideology of the United States, freedom of
  speech is one of the most important freedoms
• Even in the U.S., though, there are restrictions
  on freedom of speech, e.g.
• Slander
• Shouting fire in a crowded theater
• Calling for overturn of the government
• Revealing state secrets
• Inciting a riot
• Perjury (lying under oath)

11
More restrictions to free speech

• Many countries have more extensive restrictions
  to free speech. E.g. Germany the following are
  illegal
• Insult
• Malicious gossip
• Hate speech
• Holocaust denial
• Rewarding and approving crimes
• Insulting faiths and religious beliefs

12
Setting boundaries

• What kind of limits to free speech are
  justifiable?
• Is causing offensive considered causing harm
  (hence falling under the harm principle?)
• What about offensive language, pornography,
  satirizing political and religious leaders
• Some use of symbols are protected by freedom of
  speech laws and some arent, e.g. wearing a
  swastika, burning the flag, defacing a picture of
  the king

13
Defending the guilty

• Another related right which is widely recognized
  as a fundamental human right is the right to a
  fair trial
• All people accused of a crime are entitled to the
  best possible defense
• Is it wrong for a lawyer to defend someone he
  thinks is guilty?
• No, because
• A defending lawyer is not a judge. It is not his
  job to decide if his client is guilty, but to put
  his clients case to the judge as strongly as
  possible
• Judges and juries make judgments, not lawyers
• If lawyers refused to defend people who seem
  guilty, then seeming guilty would be tantamount
  to being guilty without a trial

14
Defending the guilty idea

• Ideas, like people, need defense
• The public are the judge, not the state or a
  state-appointed authority
• Seemingly wrong ideas should be defended as
  vigorously as possible, so the public can make an
  informed decision
• Examples communism is good, capitalism is good,
  women are inferior, smoking is not bad for your
  health, gun control is unnecessary
• Defending ideas legitimately can involve
  promoting controversial views and philosophies,
  finding and promulgating evidence and putting
  facts into favorable contexts, but not lying.

15
Mills defense of the free promulgation of
mistaken or morally repugnant ideas

• An idea that seems wrong might be right. Only
  open debate can ensure that we eventually arrive
  at the truth.
• Outlawing the expression of a wrong-headed idea
  doesnt get rid of the idea, but just drives it
  underground.
• Countering wrong-headed ideas requires the
  correct ideas to be clarified and sometimes
  improved
• there ought to exist the fullest liberty of
  professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical
  conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may
  be considered. If all mankind minus one were of
  one opinion, and only one person were of the
  contrary opinion, mankind would be no more
  justified in silencing that one person than he,
  if he had the power, would be justified in
  silencing mankind. (Mill, On Liberty)

16

• I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend
  to the death your right to say it (Evelyn
  Beatrice Hall, describing the beliefs of
  Voltaire)

Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred
schools of thought contend ????,???? (Mao Zedong)
17
Suggested readings

• J.S. Mill, On Liberty, full text at
  www.serendipity.li/jsmill/on_lib.html
• Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at
  http//plato.stanford.edu/ entry on Paternalism
• The Ethics of Justice Why Criminal Defense
  Lawyers Defend the Guilty, Ethics Scoreboard at
  www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/defense.html
• Ronald Bayer, Ethics of Health Promotion and
  Disease Prevention at www.asph.org/UserFiles/Mod
  ule6.pdf