Mill's Arguments Against Paternalism

1688 Words4 Pages

John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin seem to have different viewpoints about paternalism. Paternalism is interference with a person’s liberty of action justified by appeals to welfare or good or happiness or needs. John Stuart Mill seems to be against paternalism since there’s no justification, while Gerald Dworkin claims that it’s justifiable. The question that I will answer is the following: Is paternalism morally justified? And should it be implemented or not? I will argue against paternalism and that it’s not morally justified and that it should not be implemented. It’s not morally justified because it limits our liberties, in which we cannot fully express who we truly are. In order to have a better understanding, I will start the essay …show more content…

As I have mentioned earlier, Mill is against paternalism and Dworkin claims that paternalism is justifiable. Now to answer the question that was proposed earlier, is paternalism morally justified? And should it be implemented or not? In this case I would have to argue against that paternalism is not morally justified and it should not be implemented. I will agree with Mill’s idea about what the harm principle is and it states that a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. A person is free to do whatever they please. We all have liberty and we can decide what we want to do with that. Mill focuses on the three basic categories of liberty: 1. Liberties of conscience and expression. 2. Liberties of taste, pursuits, and life-plans. 3. Liberties of association. Note here that Mill does not defend liberty per se (by itself), but only with certain basic liberties of it. Basic liberties are not intrinsically good per se, but only conditional intrinsic good. Basic liberties are intrinsically valuable but only when various necessary conditions. And we can also say that liberties are necessary conditions to exercise of our higher capacities. But these liberties are limited by the harm

Show More
Related

  • Mills's Concept Of A Power Elite In Modern Industrial Society

    1114 Words  | 3 Pages

    While introducing the sociology of C. Wright Mills, Frank W. Elwell (2006) explained Mill’s conception of a power elite that dominates modern industrial societies, like America. According to Mills, present day societies host a small and unified group, called the power elite. The power elite holds enormous power because they are in control of the major bureaucratic organizations that currently dominate modern societies (p. 10). Mill’s perspective strongly emphasized the ongoing rationalization process and how this was related to the intensifying bureaucratization process that has shaped social structures and social organization. The processes of rationalization and bureaucratization have deeply affected many societies and Mills argued that these

    Read More

  • Affirmative Action Case Study

    1133 Words  | 3 Pages

    Mill begins “On Liberty” by asserting the principle that we should never regulate the actions of others, except if those actions harm others. He goes on to suggest that we should not restrict speech, even when we find it false. What seems odd about this is that Mill is a utilitarian, which means that the rightness or wrongness of a policy or action depends on its consequences. Clearly, some speech does an awful lot of harm and not much good, so how can Mill hold the view that we should never censor? (Your answer should include Mill’s discussion of why censorship “robs the human race” and you should cover both cases in which the minority view is false and when it’s

    Read More

  • What Is Mill's Principle Of Utility

    89 Words  | 1 Pages

    The principle of utility states that actions or behaviors are right in so far as they promote happiness or pleasure, wrong if they tend to deliver despondency or torment. Mill believes that the principle of utility is the perfect way to evaluate ethics is through the individual's happiness. People who have the opportunity to chose or purse there own form of happiness usually makes really wise ethical decisions, which improves society. I agree with mill’s theory because happiness always produces good things, which would very beneficial to the

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism and Morality in John Stuart Mill´s Essay

    1012 Words  | 3 Pages

    From top to bottom, John Stuart Mill put forth an incredible essay depicting the various unknown complexities of morality. He has a remarkable understanding and appreciation of utilitarianism and throughout the essay the audience can grasp a clearer understanding of morality. Morality, itself, may never be totally defined, but despite the struggle and lack of definition it still has meaning. Moral instinct comes differently to everyone making it incredibly difficult to discover a basis of morality. Society may never effectively establish the basis, but Mill’s essay provides people with a good idea.

    Read More

  • Autonomy vs. Paternalism

    716 Words  | 2 Pages

    Decision-making would be so much easier if we all maintained our autonomy in making the decision, however, because our decisions do not always abide by autonomistic values paternalistic intervention must occur. The purpose of autonomy is to allow us to choose to do things that affect only ourselves and does not negatively affect those around us. Unfortunately, many choices do, whether we know it or not, involve those in our environment. Paternalism is in place to protect the rights that are in our best interest and that will benefit us in the long run. Paternalistic intervention occurs when decisions are no longer in our best interests. If the decision is like to be regretted and irreversible in the future, paternalism is again justified. Autonomy is a fleeting concept, for as soon as someone chooses to do something that will later cause an addiction, his or her autonomy is lost. They no longer have the decision to do or not to do the action; it becomes a need.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill: Exploring 19th Century Utilitarianism

    1388 Words  | 3 Pages

    Arguably England’s most influential philosopher of the 19th century was none other than John Stuart Mill, a main proponent to utilitarianism — an ethical theory placing emphasis on the consequences of our actions. The ultimate goal of utilitarianism is to provide a scientific approach to decision making, while simultaneously seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. As a young woman pondering the right course of action for my future, Mill’s contributions to utilitarianism are both practical and intriguing to someone in my situation.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mills Paternism And Paternalism

    1419 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Stuart Mills is wrong when it comes to his rejection of paternalism. Mills is taking a position that is in line with that of classical liberalism which in many ways is in opposition to paternalism. This ideology only acknowledges the individual and does not take in account the larger society. Many do not like to be told what is right when it deals with something that does not affect anyone but themselves. The issue with this is that individuals are part of something. They are part of a family, community, city and nation. The impact of those choices might be seen as insignificant and not have relevance outside of their own lives but it is a small picture view and forgets about the big picture. Mills is right that paternalism is taking away liberties but those liberties affect others in ways that a person might see. Society should act as a parent to its individuals because they could cause weakness or issues that go beyond the realm of one’s own household.

    Read More

  • Mill's Utilitarianism

    1327 Words  | 3 Pages

    Mill's Utilitarianism When faced with a moral dilemma, utilitarianism identifies the appropriate considerations, but offers no realistic way to gather the necessary information to make the required calculations. This lack of information is a problem both in evaluating the welfare issues and in evaluating the consequentialist issues which utilitarianism requires be weighed when making moral decisions. Utilitarianism attempts to solve both of these difficulties by appealing to experience; however, no method of reconciling an individual decision with the rules of experience is suggested, and no relative weights are assigned to the various considerations. In deciding whether or not to torture a terrorist who has planted a bomb in New York City, a utilitarian must evaluate both the overall welfare of the people involved or effected by the action taken, and the consequences of the action taken. To calculate the welfare of the people involved in or effected by an action, utilitarianism requires that all individuals be considered equally.

    Read More

  • Analysis Of Alan Goldman's The Refutation Of Medical Paternalism

    1121 Words  | 3 Pages

    Paternalism, Goldman says, is never to obstruct an individual’s deeper long-range preference. He starts off with a scenario in which an individual who wants to go to New York is about to accidentally get on board a train going to Boston. A good Samaritan, who we may assume is aware of the individual’s intentions of going to New York, pushes that individual off the train, displaying a form of paternalism. In Goldman’s terms, this scenario depicts justified paternalism because it only sacrificed the individual’s immediate autonomy in order to preserve his deeper long-range preference. In this situation the individual only acted the way he did (board the train to Boston) due to ignorance. His intentions were always the same as his long-term preference, of going to New York. But Controversy arises when an individual’s immediate preferences don’t match up with his or her long-term preferences. In one circumstance, the individ...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill and Utilitarianism

    1321 Words  | 3 Pages

    Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.

    Read More

  • Comparing John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    2030 Words  | 5 Pages

    ...Mill does not implicitly trust or distrust man and therefore does not explicitly limit freedom, in fact he does define freedom in very liberal terms, however he does leave the potential for unlimited intervention into the personal freedoms of the individual by the state. This nullifies any freedoms or rights individuals are said to have because they subject to the whims and fancy of the state. All three beliefs regarding the nature of man and the purpose of the state are bound to their respective views regarding freedom, because one position perpetuates and demands a conclusion regarding another.

    Read More

  • The Structure of Power in American Society by C. Wright Mills

    812 Words  | 2 Pages

    Psychology is a social science that aims to study the mind and the behaviors of humans. It aims to understand what drives humans to act the way they do. It differs from sociology and anthropology in that it takes accounts the individual rather than society as a whole.

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle

    974 Words  | 2 Pages

    The harm principle was published in Mill’s work Of Liberty in 1859. He states, “That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant (978).” This means that government is not able to control peoples’ actions unless they are causing harm to other individuals. He also states that if you are causing harm to yourself the government shall not involve themselves. Different forms of harm are applicable, such as physical harm, property damage and emotional harm. Mill also explains that harm, in whatever form to others, can be the result of an action or the result of inaction. Both of these are a violation to the harm principle and the government has the right to step in; it does not matter whether harm was caused by the result of your action or inaction to the situation. The harm principle’s purpose is to be able to only let government interfere with human society when one is causi...

    Read More

  • The Greatest Happiness Principle Analysis

    1485 Words  | 3 Pages

    Mill’s critics would likely say that Utilitarianism as a whole can function to create selfish people because all are striving towards a life of more pleasure than pain, but Mill shuts this down with the idea of happiness being impartial. Basically, a person must choose an action that yields the most happiness or pleasure, whether that pleasure is for them or not. Mill would recognize that, “Among the qualitatively superior ends are the moral ends, and it is in this that people acquire the sense that they have moral intuitions superior to mere self-interest” (Wilson). By this, it is meant that although people are supposed to take action that will produce the greatest pleasure, the do not do so in a purely selfish manner. Mill goes on to argue that the happiness of individuals is interconnected; therefore one cannot be selfish in such a way. Along with the criticism of Utilitarianism and the principle of utility being selfish, many argue that such a doctrine promotes expediency in order to benefit the person conducting the action alone. I would disagree with these criticisms, and find Mill’s argument valid. His argument counters

    Read More

  • A Critical Analysis of John Stuart Mill’s "On Liberty"

    1403 Words  | 3 Pages

    ...nturies. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.

    Read More

More about Mill's Arguments Against Paternalism

Open Document