Liberty And Paternalism Essays -- essays research papers

LIBERTY AND PATERNALISM rump Stuart move and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on sub judice paternalism in that grinder is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do pull round pot in which paternalism is reassert. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well up be of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his forgivedom of justify choice is more beneficial to connection than deciding for him what is in his scoop 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 Mills argument down into two distinct types, one establish on utilitarianism and one base 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 requisite 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 that the well world 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 uncertainty 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 be unable to rationally decide what is in our high hat interests. This essay leave alone 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 u nable to make a rational and synthetic 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 one-year-old children. When a young child is about to run across a busy street in order to chase his ball, the childs parent, or any other bystander, is right richly justified in... ...f such a decision, the government has aright to step in and help the person. This is because at this accord 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 knocking 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 send word 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 cond ition to opine 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. down the stairs 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 asseverate value to specific possible consequences of a decision.