Why the Drinking Age Should be Lowered

Paternalism

Introduction

Goldman and Goldman (GG) state that “paternalism involves overriding a moral right of a person, often a liberty to act, for the person’s own good” (65). The problem with paternalism in a free society is that it creates conflict and tension between the right of the individual to act freely and the need for the society to restrict liberties in order to safeguard itself. This paper argues that while GG show that soft paternalism is justified from a utilitarian ethical perspective, hard paternalism creates problems that undermine the same ethical framework—namely problems related to the development of personal accountability and justice.

Exposition

It is proposed by GG that soft paternalism is justified in Mill’s On Liberty, which serves as the foundation for utilitarian ethics. In utilitarianism, the good is that which benefits the majority of the common people—i.e., the common good of all. Thus, soft paternalism is acceptable because although it may place some restrictions on people’s liberty it is done so in order to benefit the common good of all. Mill advocates liberty in most cases, but does make exceptions in cases wherein the safety of the person or the community may be at risk, such as “restraining a person from crossing an unsafe bridge until he can be apprised of the danger, acting paternalistically toward children and incompetents, and refusing to honor contracts of individuals to sell themselves into slavery” (66). The principle of soft paternalism is equated with “maximizing voluntariness for each act except in cases of extreme long-run forfeiture” (GG 70). Hard paternalism on the other hand is equated with the notion of preventing self-harm as “sufficient in itself to override choice, whether truly voluntary or not” (GG 71). GG go on to contend that soft paternalism is as far as one can go in a utilitarian society.

However, in a diverse society, achieving the common good often requires some compromises, so hard paternalism is something to consider, at least for the minority population so as to preserve the common good of the majority. Thus, GG posit that hard paternalism is necessary in the case of the minority so long as it offers them only a minor inconvenience. This proposition is qualified by the statement that the total benefits of soft paternalism for the majority “must outweigh the moral costs” of a hard paternalism for the minority “together with the costs of administering the laws” (GG 76). This is the main point of GG on paternalism.

The larger issue, as it pertains to issues like underage drinking and smoking, is that the rights of young people are curtailed for no clear reason. Young people often point out that at age 18 they are able to vote responsibly and enlist in the military, which means they can put their lives on the line to defend their country. Yet they are not able to buy alcohol and in some cases they are not allowed to buy cigarettes. But by age 21 they are allowed to do both. The arbitrary age discrimination makes no sense on the face of it and often leads to young people breaking the law in order to do something they consider their right to do but that, because of the discriminatory laws, makes them scofflaws in the process. By flouting the law, it creates a dangerous precedent and can lead to excess risk-taking, such as partying to excess at college campuses. Instead of teaching young people to drink responsibly by granting them access to alcohol regardless of their age and trusting that they will make sober decisions on how to use it, society restricts their rights on this matter and pushes them into a direction similar to that which the country took during the days of Prohibition in the 1920s. It is during the 1920s that organized crime came into existence in a big way, as it profited from the desire of people to exercise their perceived right to drink in the face of restrictive laws (Kobler). Today’s young people also feel restricted and push back in much the same way. This environment is one that leads to conflict and tension, whereas society should be united and fair. It in effect normalizes deviance.

Defense of Thesis

The problem with soft paternalism for some (the majority) and hard paternalism for others (the minority) is that it creates a rupture within a free society, where equality, justice and liberty are supposed to be ideals embodied in the workings of society. If a minor is not allowed to smoke cigarettes or buy alcohol, why is it acceptable for a person of a certain age to do so? Is the act of smoking or drinking any less harmful once an individual reaches a certain age? The act itself can be abused by a person no matter how old or young he is. The underlying issue is one of personal accountability—and when only one part of a population is permitted to be personally accountable (voluntarily) it also violates the principle of justice as unequal treatment is given to different populations. When justice is violated and minority populations are not permitted to develop personal accountability, it creates conflict and tension in society. This is especially true in the case of drinking and smoking cigarettes. To hard paternalistic, the restrictions against young people smoking or drinking seems an inconvenience that is soon overcome once young people reach the age of 21. However, to young people it is more than an inconvenience—it is a problem that creates an atmosphere in which deviance is normalized and people are pressured to join into the deviance in order to be socially accepted. This can lead to severe moral and psychological consequences. If drinking and smoking were accepted of all people, there would be no peer pressure towards deviance, as young people would be accepting of alcohol and smoking in an atmosphere where personal accountability is the norm rather than deviance.

A law against smoking cigarettes or drinking alcohol does not constitute a minor inconvenience. It constitutes a total demonstration of hypocrisy that undermines young people’s acceptance of the law. Once a young people feels the law to be unjust, he is at risk of disregarding all laws because they are part of the same system of law that has promoted injustice. The law should be equal, fair and just for all. Age discrimination is a form of injustice that causes people to reject not only the rule of law but also the notion of the common good, since it is their perception that their good is suppressed in favor of the good that others seek to enjoy.

Throm makes the case well that colleges in particular would benefit from doing away with such an unjust law. Currently, college campuses are places where young people are most at risk for alcohol abuse: unpracticed in drinking responsibly, they are exposed to an environment in which drinking illegally is an accepted norm, even though it is deviant behavior. They are encouraged to be deviants themselves, and this opens up a slippery slope of deviance that can lead one to other risky behaviors, such as risky sexual behavior, drug taking, reckless driving, and so on. If young people were exposed to alcohol earlier, this risk would not be there and college campuses would be more sober because alcohol would not be a big deal to them like it is now. Throm notes that “telling a teenager not to do something usually results in them doing it anyway out of spite. Telling teenagers they aren’t allowed to drink alcohol just makes them sneakier in finding a way to get it.” Other countries, particularly in Europe, have shown that a society that is open to alcohol helps to create personal responsibility in young people.

But in America, a culture of irresponsibility and rebellion is created instead. Because of this culture of rebellion against what are seen as unjust laws, there are dire consequences: “more than 1,800 students die every year of alcohol-related causes. An additional 600,000 are injured while drunk, and nearly 100,000 become victims of alcohol-influenced sexual assaults” (McMurtrie). The allure of engaging in a forbidden activity that is now readily available to them causes young people to slip up in a major ways. If they were taught instead to respect alcohol and smoking, the temptation to abuse these things would not be as great. The culture of America is still impacted by the Puritanical belief system of its early days; yet it is simultaneously prurient in other ways because of the sense of license and freedom that comes when a person is of a certain age or in a certain place where deviance is normalized.

Because of the culture of deviance that is fostered, there is a greater need to spend on law enforcement. This is an additional drain on a society’s resources—just as it was during the era of Prohibition. Funds could be used for many other purposes that are currently spent on enforcing drinking and smoking laws. Thus, by exercising hard paternalism on the minority, the costs are felt additionally by the majority who believe the hard paternalism is necessary for their common good. They do not realize these hidden costs to themselves. They consider only the minor inconvenience of denying an underage person the right to drink or smoke for a time. Yet to a young person it is more than a minor inconvenience: it is an injustice that denies them the opportunity to develop personal accountability and that instead fosters a culture of deviance that then pressures them to embrace deviance in order to fit in with other peers.

As Dworkin points out, “Mill intends his principles to be applicable only to mature individuals” (76). But that brings one back to the question of whether young people are mature enough to make decisions for themselves regarding drinking and smoking. If they are old enough to vote, then surely they are to be considered mature. If they are old enough to go off to war, then surely it is the same. So why are they not considered legally mature enough to decide for themselves whether they ought to be able to drink or smoke? Cudd argues that “in a liberal society citizens have the right to take most drugs” (17). A liberal society should not therefore restrict people who are legally considered mature enough to vote and go off to war from drinking or smoking.