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/>.
