Paternalism and Karl Marx

Mehmet Akif Özsoy
   
  20th century symbolizes many historical events. There have been established new countries, there have been defeated some states. These are just examples of historical events in the 20th century and we can list more. However it is important to understand the backgrounds of these historical events. What I meant by background is war of ideologies. One of these effective ideologies was communism which is constitutively created by Karl Marx. 

  Today communism can not be restricted with Karl Marx because last two hundred years the idea of communism has been changed and branched off. However this does not mean there is no essential principle. Actually there is essential principle and when people talk about left-wingers or communists, or when they define themselves as Marxist, they mean something. They refer to some ideas which are common for them. They define themselves more individual and more libertarians in spite of conservatives. What are meant by these descriptions have political meanings more than economic meanings. Background of these expressions aims to say that state should not interfere individual’s personal lives and choices, even for their own sakes. These kinds of interferences are known as “paternalism”.  Briefly it can be said that left-winger people against to paternalism. However it is hard to say that creator of the leftist ideology Karl Marx is an anti-paternalist man. The main question is “What is Karl Marx’s real approach to paternalism? “Writings of Karl Marx are innumerable so it is hard to analyze all paternalistic items in his books. However we can focus on some of these and reach a result.


     When we talk about paternalism we need two elements. One of them is people and the other is state. Even most paternalistic figures in the history accept that they are dealing with human beings and they try to find some pretexts for their limiter actions. However Marx’s approach to bourgeoisie makes me ask myself “Is this bourgeoisie class comprised of human beings or not?” Of course I know that it comprised of humans but sometimes Marx’s expressions make you forget.  Especially first chapter of the “Manifesto of the Communist Party”, which is “Chapter I. Bourgeois and Proletarians”, shows bourgeoisie as the reason of the all negativities. “Society can no longer live under this bourgeoisie, in other words, its existence is no longer compatible with society……… What the bourgeoisie therefore produces, above all, are its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable.”(217) I know that communism based on the idea of defeat this class. However this whole revaluation idea is oppression on all classes but proletariats. This might be understood like “Communism will save the world but first we should destroy your components.” This is the ultimate point of paternalism.

    Thus far what I mentioned by Marx is related with the process of revolution. If the dream of communism would be real what kind of paternalistic items would affect people? If you are not a fan of paternalistic system, Marx’s ideas will make you suffer. In 1848 with ‘The Demands of the Communist Party In Germany” Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels list their demands and this list looks like a list of paternalistic demands. The list starts with “Proletarians of all countries, unite!” and we understand with the number 4 why they need to unite. It says “4. The whole population shall be armed. In future, the armed forces are to be forces of workers as well, so that the army will not merely be a consumer, as it was in the past, but will produce even more than the cost of its upkeep. Furthermore, this will be a means of organizing labor.”(242) You do not need to be an anti-militarist to reject this. If you are an anti-paternalist person this demand will not satisfy you. As it seems this is more than compulsory military service and this is a valid proof for Marx is a paternalist.

   Especially ‘The Demands of the Communist Party in Germany” is a good proof for Karl Marx was imaging a paternalistic state. This list goes on. To sum up today’s left-wingers are far away from Karl Marx on the paternalism issue. Even if they say leftism make people more free against to state, Marx is not one of that leftists. As I mentioned before Marx has innumerable writings and this means he has innumerable states. These are my ideas and do not forget that ideas are subjective. 


Note: You can reach the writings that are mentioned: The Portable Karl Marx, Karl Marx, Eugene Kamenka (ed.). Penguin Books, 1983
Image Sources:
http://www.notebookmerkezi.org/wp-content/uploads/karl-marx_4731_1.jpg
http://www.proletarya.com/

   

Evaluate Yourself: Do You Support Paternalism?

Choose one of the answers provided for each question and note them down, you will be given a ratio result at the end of the test.

        1) Which one of these answers do you think describes human nature better?

a.       Human beings are self-oriented and capable of doing horrifying things and sometimes can act without reason.

b.      Human beings know what is in their best interest and naturally good.

        2) What is your view on pornography?

a.       It should be banned because it may affect the society unfavorably.

b.      It should be permitted.

        3) Suppose that the state wants to impose new taxes on cigarette and alcohol in order to reduce the consumption.

a.       I would support it because their bad effects on human body are proven and the state should protect its citizens.

b.      Even though they are harmful, people are aware of this and the state should respect their decisions.

       4) Do you think that military service should be compulsory?

a.      Yes, it should be compulsory.

b.      No, it should be a voluntary duty instead of an obligation.

       5) Suppose that a group of people want to hold a protest. Should the state prevent them from doing so?

a.       Yes, the state should prevent them for the public good, -for example- because of traffic problems etc.

b.      No, people have a right to hold a demonstration and the state should not limit their liberty.

       6) What is your view on heavy taxes that the state impose?

a.       The state can impose heavy taxes as it uses the taxes for public good.

b.      The state should impose lower taxes as individuals are more important.

       7) What is your view on compulsory primary school education?

a.      Primary school education should be compulsory since the state is responsible for people’s well-being in general.

b.      The state cannot force people do certain things especially when they are not capable of making rational decisions.

       8) What do you think about the censors on the Internet?

a.      The state can impose censorship if there is inappropriate content.

b.      The state cannot impose censorship on the Internet as individuals are capable of distinguishing what is right and wrong.

Now, evaluate your answers. 

If you chose A answers more than B's, then it means you are in favor of the state paternalism. You think the state has a duty to protect its citizens from any kind of harms and provide public good even though it sometimes might result in limiting other individuals’ freedom. On the other hand, if you chose B answers more, it means that you value personal rights more than you value public good, and you are supporting the idea that  individuals should be free to make their own choices since they know best what is good for them. 

Paternalism and John Stuart Mill

Aras Can Kayar

Do we have a right to limit one’s freedom if it was for their own good, or we claim it was? The answer is of vital importance as it will determine our position in the struggle between the state or an individual and other individuals based on the limits of our liberty.

If your answer to the question above is “Yes, sometimes we should protect them even from themselves.”, it means that you hold a paternalistic view. However, John Stuart Mill probably would have had problems with you. In his work On Liberty, he introduces us his individualistic views in defense of an argument against paternalism. 

Mill argues that most of us are capable of knowing what is in their best interest, and even though others might have good intentions, they might misapply them. Therefore, it is best to avoid paternalism in general. Mill says “He is the person most interested in his own well-being…the interference of society to overrule his judgment may be altogether wrong” (209). Mill constructs his argument on the basis of reason, and therefore, he only allows for paternalism when it is clear that the person cannot make rational decisions. There are two circumstances where paternalism is justified: one of them is when the person does not have the rational faculties of the mind and the second one is when there is no evidence that the person knows his actions are dangerous (Kierkagaard).

Mill bases his arguments on the ground of two principles that he puts forward which are the harm principle and utilitarianism. According to the harm principle, an action is permissible as long as it does not inflict harm on another (224). The principle allows for the self-regarding harms that the person is aware of (Kierkagaard). When a person is aware of the danger that his actions possess, paternalism can be considered the greatest harm because it kills individual’s autonomy. When it comes to utilitarianism, Mill claims that proper actions are the ones that maximize utility (228). One might argue that sometimes the way of maximizing utility might be limiting an individual’s liberty. However, since Mill values individual autonomy significantly, individuals’ decisions become highly important when we try to determine the good in different situations. Therefore, principle of utilitarianism is positioned against paternalism by its nature (Kierkagaard).

To sum, paternalism provides an opportunity to intervene with people’s actions in the name of their own good. However, Mill spiritedly argues against paternalism as he values individual autonomy significantly and allows its restriction in very limited circumstances, which is an endeavor that needs to be appreciated in terms of trying to justify the importance of our liberties.

  

                                                                                                                          Works Cited

Kierkagaard. "J.S. Mill’s “On Liberty”: The Case Against Paternalism." . N.p., 13 Nov. 2012.        Web. 8 May 2014. <http://facedownphilosophy.wordpress.com/2012/11/13/j-s-mills- on-liberty-the-case-against-paternalism/>.

Bentham, Jeremy , John Stuart Mill, and John Troyer. The Classical Utilitarians. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company , 2003. Print.

Paternalism and Thomas Hobbes

Fulya Cansu Güner /  

Thomas Hobbes’ book Leviathan is one of the works which advocates paternalism rather successfully and awakens some questions in readers’ minds, which they would not have possibly arise such questions without this works’ reading. One of the most important of these questions is whether we really need paternalism to keep humanity under control? Also one thinks, since this is the main argument Hobbes presents, isn’t it better to have a secure life in exchange of some liberties? Would it not be worth it?

In Leviathan, Hobbes explicitly argues why people need paternalism by introducing one particularly important concept: state of nature.  Since human beings are wicked and selfish in their nature, Hobbes believes without a sovereign or without a solid authority which applies paternalistic rules and laws; humanity would be in a state which the war goes on incessantly and he calls this the ‘state of nature’ (185). Furthermore, Hobbes has a strong belief that people need an executive body during their whole lives, just like they have their parents in their childhood. In this sense, I think may be Hobbes found the paternalism as a closest answer for this issue or may be the most applicable one. After introducing the state of nature concept, Hobbes uses it to legitimate almost everything that he argues in the rest of his work. To be clearer, it can be demonstrated by a schema as follows: (S.O.N = state of nature)

                                                                                 

- Sovereign should decide the punishments.                                                                     

- One must always seek peace.        Because if not --))))

        

- All people are equal by nature.

                                                              

In order to prevent S.O.N, Hobbes introduces the ‘laws of nature’ as well as an existence of a sovereign. As one can guess, these laws contain the things that people are forbidden to do which may risk their lives or it can be taken away by someone for the same purpose, as we see two examples of them in the last two rules presented in the schema (189). Therefore, one can conclude that in the base of Hobbes’ work Leviathan; the sovereign and its rules, which are the laws of nature, represents a paternalistic system in order to achieve a properly functioning society.

               

As a final thought, in chapter 20 of the Leviathan, Hobbes presents paternalism as a way of acquiring dominion, as he describes: “The right of Dominion by Generation, is that, which the Parent hath over his Children; and is called PATERNALL, And is not so derived from the Generation, as if therefore the Parent had Dominion over his child because he begat him; but from the Childs Consent, either expresse, or by other sufficient arguments declared” (253). In sum, it is strongly possible to argue that Hobbes saw paternalism as a way of gaining power and legitimacy -which are the exact features that he would like to see in a sovereign- by acquiring dominion. All in all, one can perceive from the Leviathan that Hobbes tried to build a system where he can gurantee people's life security, a quality life in general and he beleived that those features are more valuable than being completely free. 

                                                                                       

Works Cited

Image sources:

http://www.wuw-warsaw.pl/program.php?lang=eng&page=wydarzenia&id=46&mod=opis

http://lifeexaminations.wordpress.com/2011/04/16/the-state-of-nature-absence-makes-the-heart-                         grow-fonder/

http://studymore.org.uk/ssh2.htm

Other sources:

           Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. 1651. Reprint. London: Penguin Group, 1968. Print.

                                                                           

10 Weird Paternalistic Examples From Around the World

Legislative organs of each state try to make laws that are in people's best interest. However, there are some that we cannot understand the reasons behind them. 

1) In Oklahoma, you can be arrested for making ugly faces at a dog.

http://www.oddee.com/item_97635.aspx

2) In France, it is against the law to sell an "E.T" doll. They have a law forbidding the sale of dolls that do not have human faces.  

3)  In San Francisco, California it is unlawful to use used underwear to wipe off cars in a car wash. 

4) In the state of Washington, it is illegal to have sex with a virgin under any circumstances. (Including the wedding night.) 

5)  In Samoa, it is a crime to forget your own wife's birthday. (Perhaps this is the most logical one and really protects men!!) 

6)   In England, it is illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament. 

7)   In Singapore, chewing gum is illegal. 

8)  In Denmark, you should choose your child's name from the list that the state prepared. Otherwise, you need church's permission. 

9)  In Ohio, it is against state law to get a fish drunk. 

10)  In France, it's illegal to name a pig Napoleon.

Sources:

"Dünya Ülkelerinin İlginç Yasakları." . vibburak, 17 July 2013. Web. 08 May 2014. <http://onedio.com/haber/dunya-ulkelerinin-ilginc-yasaklari-133585>

"100 Weird Laws From Around the World." .flapjack, 1 Oct. 2014. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://itthing.com/100-weird-laws-from-around-the-world>.

Debates on the Roots of Paternalism

(Source: http://thompsonartstudio.com/human-nature-paintings/)



Fulya Cansu Güner

I think paternalism mostly derives its roots from the negative or rather realistic beliefs in human nature. It is a well known or many time proved fact that human beings are capable of doing horrifying things. In this sense, I must admit that, some kind of a protection or security idea which is provided with paternalism is welcomed in exchange of preventing those terrible acts. May be we need paternalism, indeed, to have a better life in overall by sacrificing some of our liberties like Thomas Hobbes advocates. If human nature is really better than being selfish and wicked, why do we live under states, under laws today? How come they appeared in the first place? Why people needed such institutions to take control?  

Aras Can Kayar

Although I must admit that human beings are capable of doing horrifying things as Fulya stated, our pessimistic views on the human nature can only justify our position against paternalism. After all, even if there was a necessity to interfere with one’s actions, that intervention will be done by the state which is ruled either by one man or a group of people, and other individuals. Even if we accept the idea that human beings are selfish and self-oriented, and needs to be limited, it cannot provide a justification for paternalism. Therefore, in most cases, interventions will carry the bad intentions of the human nature.

Mehmet Akif Özsoy

Both of my friends's ideas are valuable but not valid enough I think. In “Second Treatise of Government” John Locke defines the paternal power as “ Paternal or parental power is nothing but that which parents have over their children, to govern them for the children’s good, till they come to the use of reason, or state of knowledge, wherein they may be capable to understand that rule….” This shows that paternalism rises from the relationship between parents who are qualified enough, and children who are not qualified enough. I think, in time this parent figure has turned into state formation and child figure has turned into citizen formation. However since adult citizens do not lack of reason like children, paternalism can not be considered as a valid system for governing people. 

What is Paternalism?

(Image Source: http://37.media.tumblr.com/477a4527a8211239d6f62c2d207400c6/tumblr_n34d9pKPXY1r66udio1_500.jpg )

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Dictionary Definiton:

Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will, and defended or motivated by a claim that the person interfered with will be better off or protected from harm.

Two types of Paternalism as Soft vs. Hard:

Soft Paternalism: State interference can only be justified under certain conditions, which there is a need to determine whether the individual is acting voluntarily and knowledgeably. If there is the consent of the individual for the situation that may be harmful for them, they should be allowed to do whatever they want such as committing suicide. 

Hard Paternalism: Interference is justified even though the individual is aware of the possible harmful outcomes of her/his actions. For example: if one wishes to commit suicide, we do not only have a right to interfere, but we are also entitled to prevent such an harmful act for the individual itself.

Source: 

Dworkin, Gerald. "Paternalism." . Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , 6 Nov. 2002. Web. 8 May 2014. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/>.