Paternalism Is the Interference of a State

Paternalism is the interference of a state or an individual with another person, against their will. The practice of paternalism is usually justified on the grounds that the interference is necessary as the person or persons affected would be better off, or protected from harm as a result of the rule, policy, or action (Dworkin, 2002). The concept of paternalism invites a great deal of controversy and debate because although the stated intention is benevolent, paternalism assumes that the enforcer possesses a larger wisdom than the person being interfered with (Suber, 1999).

Indeed, it is this premise that leads to parents running interference with their children or governments legislating on a wide range of issues such as abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriages, substance abuse etc. While, no doubt, paternalism is necessary in some instances, its practice in others appears to be highly questionable and an unnecessary violation of individual liberty. Indeed, it is the latter consideration that brings into question the ethics of paternalism.

If paternalism is evaluated purely on a theoretical basis, the fact that it violates individual liberty is sufficient to argue that it is immoral. However, in practice, there are several instances where it is evident that paternalism is, in fact, necessary to protect the interests of a person or persons. For example, the fact that parents must necessarily run interference with their children in order to protect them from harm is pretty much unquestionable, since children are still developing cognitive skills in their formative years.

Similarly, although citizens may grumble about being coerced into paying taxes or contributing to Social Security, the fact is that such economic policies are designed in the larger interests of social justice. Indeed, it can even be argued that both children and responsible, adult members of society silently accede to such interference since they do understand that such actions are in their own interests. These examples of paternalism are useful in as much as they help to establish that paternalism can be viewed as an ethical practice.

The problem arises when paternalism is invoked as a justification for interfering with a competent adult's liberty to make his or her own choices pertaining to individual morals or welfare. For example, the ethical considerations, when paternalism is used as the ground for legislating on issues such as prostitution, pornography, same-sex marriages, abortion, euthanasia, and certain types of medical treatment, is highly open to debate.

The debate on the ethics of paternalism in each of the preceding examples arises because the grounds for infringing on individual liberty here is open to questions such as, "To what extent should people be free to do what they want if others are not harmed...the harm principle, famously articulated by Mill, holds that limiting liberty can only be justified to prevent harm to other people, not to.