LIBERTY AND PATERNALISM
John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases require the intervention of either society as a whole or its individual members. He breaks Mill’s argument down into two distinct types, one based on utilitarianism and one based on the absolute value of free choice.
After reading both articles, “Paternalism” by Dworkin and “On Liberty” by Mill, I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some intervention is necessary under certain circumstances. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, but also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the protection of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to interfere with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governments main reasons for existence is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of my proposed conclusion.
Before addressing any opposing views to my conclusion, I will first explain my reasoning. As Dworkin explains in his essay, there are circumstances when a person is unable to make a rational and logical decision for himself. The inability to make such decisions has long been a justified reason to interfere in the process, such as in cases with young children. When a young child is about to run across a busy street in order to chase his ball, the child’s parent, or any other bystander, is rightfully justified in...
... middle of paper ...
...f such a decision, the government has aright to step in and help the person. This is because at this understanding of the situation, the person is not capable of making a decision that he would likely consent to at after fully understanding the situation. As in the seat belt case, often times, a person does not fully understand that not wearing a seat belt contradicts his true desires and that no possible good or benefit can come from not wearing it. However, when a person is making a rational decision between two things that he values, he is the only person that can decide which is best for him. An important condition to remember in this conclusion is that all of this is assuming that no other individuals are being harmed or put at risk by the actions of these people. Under this condition I have come to the conclusion that there do exist certain circumstances where the government has a right to legal paternalism. These circumstances include times when an individual is unable to make a rational and logical decision for himself either because he does not fully understand the issue or because he is unable to logically assign value to specific possible consequences of a decision.
There are many ethical paradigms through which humans find guidance and justification for their own actions. In the case of contractarianism, citizens of a state are entitled to human rights, considered to be unalienable, and legal rights, which are both protected by the state. As Spinello says, “The problem with most rights-based theories is that they do not provide adequate criteria for resolving practical disputes when rights are in conflict” (14). One case that supports Spinello is the case of Marlise Munoz, a brain-dead pregnant thirty-three year old, who was wrongly kept on life support for nearly two months at John Peter Smith Hospital in Fort Worth, Texas. Misinterpretation of the Texas Advance Directives Act by John Peter Smith Hospital led to the violation of the contractarian paradigm. Although the hospital was following the directive in order to maintain legal immunity for its hospital staff, the rights of the family were violated along with the medical fundamental principle to “first, do no harm.”
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.
In John Stuart Mill’s literature (575-580), he describes a system of ethics which he dubs as Utilitarianism. Mill’s Utilitarianism is unique because it is a Consequentialist theory – it focuses on the consequences of things, rather than individual processes involved. In other words, Mill argues that, for an action to be morally correct, it must solely contribute towards benefitting the greater good and maximizing humanity’s happiness. I argue that this ethical theory is flawed and cannot be used as a standard to gauge the morality of our actions because, since Utilitarianism is so entrenched on the outcomes that are produced, it has the potential to sanction clearly wrong actions, so long as they promote the general welfare. In this critique,
John Stuart Mill believes in a utilitarian society where people are seen as “things.” Moreover, in utilitarianism the focus of the goal is “forward-looking”, in looking at the consequences but not the ini...
We can only tell the amount of offenders that are not deterred because of the amount of criminals caught by the police. There is no way to know the amount of people who are actually deterred from crime because they never end up offending. So we can assume that most people refrain from offending because of deterrence, but we cannot exclude other factors which keep people away from crime. Moral values is one example; individualized personality traits which most people pick up from their parents or develop on their own can have a huge impact on whether or not people choose to offend. Strain theory may involve some assumptions of demographics about those offending that might not be true. During my research, I noted the theory refers to primarily the economically challenged. In my opinion, this theory could apply just as easily to the wealthy to commit some white-collar crime. So I conclude that strain can and will exist everywhere, wherever there are people enduring hardships there will be those who choose criminal activity as a method to attain goals otherwise achieved through legitimate
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...
This is mostly when a woman goes out at night or darkness finds her far and she is not in company of a man. When this one happens, violent criminals may harm them. They need to always stay safe and away from any violent stranger. “An individual woman may be terrorized by her spouse, but women are not sufficiently terrorized that we avoid marriage. Yet many women I know, including myself, try to avoid going outside of their homes alone after dark. Big deal, you say; well, yes, it is a big deal since most lectures, performances, and films are presented at night; so are dinners and other social events. Women out alone at night who are assaulted by strangers are put on trial by public opinion: Any woman out alone after dark is asking for trouble. Presently, for millions of women of all socioeconomic backgrounds, sundown is lockdown. We are prisoners of violent strangers” (Silko
Through public education, most elementary school kids can understand that smoking is bad for them and that cigarettes are additive. Cigarettes are addictive due to nicotine, a drug found in tobacco (“Quitting Smoking”, 2015). According to Schneider (2016), some of the greatest health problems associated with smoking include: lung cancer, other cancers, coronary heart disease, other heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, other vascular disease, diabetes mellitus, pneumonia, influenza, tuberculosis, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), prenatal conditions, and sudden infant death syndrome. As stated by the Authority of the American Lung Association in an article titled “Health
Mill’s convincing argument explains the context that natural rights are nonsense when they do not have legal protection and the hierarchal morality innately exists in mankind. Together Mill accounts for the legal and morality of natural rights.
Many advantages and drawbacks have been debated concerning gun control. Over the years, the federal government has made various laws restricting gun possession and use (O’Neil 56). Congress has reinforced the 1938 gun-control law that now denies a gun dealer from selling handguns to buyers under the age of twenty-one (O’Neil 56). Gun control laws also prohibits a gun dealer to sell a firearm to the mentally ill, convicted felons, and selling a rifle to buyers under eighteen (O’Neil 13). Gun control eliminates some factors relating to firearm violence and illegal possession which is the top priority for this law (O’Neil 60). Recent laws have become stricter regarding firearms this can be viewed as a good idea but, to any law there is a disadvantage (O’Neil 61). In the near future if firearms become heavily restricted, the only users will be the users who flaunt the law which are the very people who should not possess a firearm (Bernards 23). Even if it was possible to ban guns there are several hundred million firearms in private hands right now (O’Neil 84.) People have discussed this decision thoroughly it may or may not reduce gun violence in America (O’Neil 67). One such example that banning guns could work is Great Britain who, after a severe massacre that occurred in 1996 decided to ban firearms (O’Neil 64). Great Britain banned all semiautomatic and handguns also encouraged their citizens to hand their weapons to the British government (O’Neil 65). Gun control is viewed as positive and a negative on how the government will ands controlling guns around the United
Holmstrom, A. (2004). The effects of the media on the body image: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 48(2), 196-217.
There is a great concern in the school system right now in reference to student’s disruptive and violent behavior. This behavior has started to increase and the immediate response among teachers and staff is to stop this behavior by implementing school resource officers (SROs) into the school. This would be a tremendous mistake among the students because starting a SRO program would increase arrests among students, increase behavior problems, start using police officers for behavioral problems which should be handled by teachers and staff, and even target children of race and disabilities disproportionately compared to other children.
Strain theories of criminal behaviour have been amongst the most important and influential in the field of criminology. Taking a societal approach, strain theories have sought to explain deficiencies in social structure that lead individuals to commit crime (Williams and McShane 2010). Strain theories operate under the premise that there is a societal consensus of values, beliefs, and goals with legitimate methods for achieving success. When individuals are denied access to legitimate methods for achieving success, the result is anomie or social strain. This often leads an individual to resort to deviant or criminal means to obtain the level of success that they are socialized to pursue. This is the basic premise of strain theory. This paper will explore the evolution of strain theories by first examining their intellectual foundations which laid the foundation for Robert Merton’s theories of anomie and strain. Merton’s strain theory will be discussed in detail including the modes of adaptation that people use when faced with societal strain. Finally, the paper will conclude with the strengths and weaknesses of Merton’s strain theory and an examination of the criminological theories and social policies it has influenced.
One of the many ways to measure an organization's success in meeting or achieving its strategic objectives is to evaluate the performance of its employees. This evaluation, if it is to be effective or of substantial value to the organization, it needs to be systematic and purposeful. In order to explain the impact that a performance management system can have on other areas of human resource management, it is necessary to define the relationship between a performance management system and human resource management. First, a performance management system is one area of human resource management. It is now becoming a strategic issue for organizations, in their pursuit of addressing deficiencies in the performance of employees in a timely manner; channeling employees in the appropriate direction towards performance of specific objectives that are consistent with the work or overall strategies of the organization; and providing employees with appropriate and specific feedback to assist with their career development. Secondly, a performance management system needs to be well conceived so that there is full concurrence on the system and that it is not viewed as a subjective tool to highlight employee weaknesses. Human resource management involves "the development of a consistent, aligned collection of practices, programmes, and policies to facilitate the achievement of the organization's strategic objectives" (Mello 2002 p. 298). Given the fact that there is no single best way to manage people in any one organization, human resource management practices will invariably differ in organizations. The fundamental aspect of human resource management is the implementation of a successful people-management system that is supportive of the orga...
...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.