Abstract

Paternalism involves a situation in which A interferes with B primarily to protect B from the harmful consequences of his own actions. To determine if such intervention can be justified a detailed analysis of paternalism is necessary. This is provided in the first chapter. ;In the second chapter possible strategies of justification are examined. Employing Mill's essay On Liberty as a source from which a principle of justification takes shape, I maintain that he advocates paternalism where it furthers individuality, as opposed to mere freedom; and I try to show how such acts are consistent with, even if not derived solely from, utilitarianism. ;The meaning and value of individuality are considered in chapter three. Individuality is understood in terms of one's having a value ordering and the capacity to choose and act accordingly. Personal value orderings, in turn, provide a sense of identity and esteem so far as they issue from a process that invokes personal traits. I then apply these findings to various forms of strong paternalism. ;Weak paternalism is discussed in chapter four. Here I explain how proponents employ the relationship between consent, voluntary agency, and self-determination in attempting to justify certain interventions and to proscribe others, some of which are sanctioned by strong paternalism. ;My next task is to elaborate on the significance of consent. After reviewing various consent modes appealed to at the level of justification--prior, subsequent, and hypothetical--I conclude that only prior consent functions in this way, and even then only in a small minority of cases in which intervention seems plausible. The implications for competing versions of paternalism are then considered. ;The final chapter consists in adjudicating the strong/weak paternalist polemic. In effecting a compromise I argue that weak paternalists fix too narrowly the moral limits of self-determination while strong paternalists fix them too widely. A concluding summation follows.