Paternalism

Paternalism is action that limits a person's or group's liberty or autonomy against their will and is intended to promote their own good. It has been defended in a variety of contexts as a means of protecting individuals from significant harm, supporting long-term autonomy, or promoting moral or psychological well-being. Such justifications are commonly found in public health policy, legal theory, medical ethics, and behavioral economics, where limited intervention is viewed as compatible with or even supportive of personal agency.

Some, such as John Stuart Mill, think paternalism can be appropriate towards children, saying:

"It is, perhaps, hardly necessary to say that this doctrine [i.e. that individual liberty should only be restricted to protect a person or to protect others] is meant to apply only to human beings in the maturity of their faculties. We are not speaking of children, or of young persons below the age which the law may fix as that of manhood or womanhood."

Paternalism towards adults is sometimes characterized as treating them as if they were children.

Some critics argue that such interventions can infringe upon autonomy and reflect insufficient respect for an individual’s capacity for self-determination. The terms 'paternalism,' 'paternalistic,' and 'paternalist' are sometimes used pejoratively, particularly in political or social discourse.

The word paternalism derives from the adjective paternal, which entered the English language in the fifteenth century from Old French paternel (cf. Old Occitan paternal, as in Catalan, Spanish and Portuguese), itself from Medieval Latin paternalis. The classical Latin equivalent was paternus 'fatherly', from pater 'father'.

Soft paternalism is the view that paternalism is justified only if an action to be committed is involuntary. John Stuart Mill gives the example of a person about to walk across a damaged bridge. Because the person does not know the bridge is damaged and there is no time to warn him, seizing him and turning him back is not an infringement on his liberty. According to soft paternalism, one would be justified in forcing him to not cross the bridge so one could find out whether he knows about the damage. If he knows and wants to jump off the bridge and commit suicide, then one should allow him to. Soft paternalism is the intervention due to a person not having the rationality or ability to make decisions. If a patient in an emergency room is intoxicated or unconscious, they do not possess the rationality or ability to make decisions for themselves and any decisions made on their behalf would be soft paternalism.

Hard paternalists say that at least sometimes one is entitled to prevent him from crossing the bridge and committing suicide. Hard paternalism does not rely on the absence of rationality or ability. In the emergency room example, the patient is sober or conscious and possesses the rationality and ability to make decisions about their care. Any decision that is made on their behalf would be hard paternalism.