993663
Description
Mind Map by tayla.williams, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by tayla.williams
almost 11 years ago
|
|
Paternalism: liberty restricted on
other grounds other than harm
- to act paternalistically = to take care of someone even if this means
contravening their express wishes
- in contrast: to recognise fullyy the autonomy of citizens
suggests that they ought to be allowed to make poor life
choices which may even be harmful to themselves
- an attitude of paternalism = one in which those who have authority over us
attempt to prevent us from exercising choices that are viewed as having the
potential to harm us.
- Puzzle associated with paternalism = is the state ever justified
in limiting the freedom of competent adults for their own good?
- People are constantly doing things that are stupid and
harmful to themselves: e.g. no helmets on
bikes/smoking cigarettes
- To stop them: state would have to restrict their liberty. Is the
state ever justified in intervening when we are harming
no-one BUT ourselves
- To stop them: state would have to restrict their liberty. Is the
state ever justified in intervening when we are harming
no-one BUT ourselves
- People are constantly doing things that are stupid and
harmful to themselves: e.g. no helmets on
bikes/smoking cigarettes
- Mill = rejects paternalism.
- EXAMPLE 1: compulsory wearing of helmets/ seatbelts
- decrease: severity of injury thus reduce overall cost of medical care
- decrease: severity of injury thus reduce overall cost of medical care
- EXAMPLE 2: SA: Tobacco laws: SA bans smoking in public places/ advertising of
tobacco products/ compels manufacturers to place warning labels on cig packets/
sin tax
- Banning = legitimate restriction based on Mills harm principle but
what about the sin tax? people are still going to pay the higher
tax if they wish to smoke the cig.
- the ban on advertising = aimed at preventing people being tempted to try them - contravenes
the notion that the state should be neutral about values and should aim to provide the space
in which citizens can pursue their own ideas about what constitutes a good life, free from
undue interference
- the state may argue that it's justified in limiting freedom of speech of tobacco companies
to prevent recruiting new customers who may be ignorant of the clear harm that smoking
causes
- the state may argue that it's justified in limiting freedom of speech of tobacco companies
to prevent recruiting new customers who may be ignorant of the clear harm that smoking
causes
- Banning = legitimate restriction based on Mills harm principle but
what about the sin tax? people are still going to pay the higher
tax if they wish to smoke the cig.
- EXAMPLE 3: Compulsory voting
- Clearly an infringement on the freedom of the citizen to choose
whether or no to vote
- but can it be justified: some argue the CV = results in the election of representatives who are a more
accurate reflection of the will of the people
- voting may not harm anyone but if no one votes = the idea of democracy
collapses - the polity would be harmed. Mills HP renders CV a legitimate
infringement
- voting may not harm anyone but if no one votes = the idea of democracy
collapses - the polity would be harmed. Mills HP renders CV a legitimate
infringement
- but can it be justified: some argue the CV = results in the election of representatives who are a more
accurate reflection of the will of the people
- Clearly an infringement on the freedom of the citizen to choose
whether or no to vote
Want to create your own Mind Maps for free with GoConqr? Learn more.