Liberty And Paternalism Essays -- essays research papers

LIBERTY AND PATERNALISMJohn Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin devour distinctly opponent views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against each nominate of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both add up 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 man-to-man to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to troupe than deciding for him what is in his go around interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, feels that certain cases exact the intervention of both society as a whole or its unmarried members. He breaks Mills argument down into both 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 inter vention is necessary under certain circumstances. I have arrest to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an private is incapable of make a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, scarce also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the fosterion of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to impede with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governances 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 trial 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 nock a rational and lo gical decision for himself. The inability to make such(prenominal) decisions has long been a justified reason to interfere in the process, such as in cases with young children. When a young child is or so to run across a busy street in put in to chase his ball, the childs parent, or any other bystander, is genuinely justified in... ...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 afterward fully understanding the situation. As in the seat belt case, often times, a person does not fully understand that not eroding a seat belt contradicts his true desires and that no possible heavy or benefit can come from not wearing it. However, when a person is making a rational decision between 2 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 assumptive 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.