Paternalism vs. Individual Rights

1. Paternalism vs. Individual Rights

2. Tutorial change • Group 9 tutorials • Oct. 1 changed to Oct. 8 • Oct. 8 will discuss Thank You For Smoking • New dates: Sept. 17, Oct. 8, Oct. 22, Nov. 5, Nov. 19

3. Portfolio reminder • You must write a short answer (2 pages) to one question on each of 8 movies (out of 10). • Due at the end of the course. • 50% of your grade • Assessment summary: • Class presentation in tutorial: 20% • Tutorial participation: 30% • Portfolio: 50%

4. Paternalism We know what’s best for you. The state should protect people from themselves. The state is modeled after the family Very popular historical understanding of the state’s relationship to its citizens Aristotle compared the family to the state, the head of household to the monarch, the wife, children and slaves to the subjects

5. Confucius Five relationships: 1) Ruler to Subject 2) Father to Son 3) Husband to Wife 4) Elder Brother to Younger Brother 5) Friend to Friend In every relationship except friend to friend, the relationship is hierarchical, with the former using his wisdom and power to govern, guide and protect the latter.

6. Individual Rights John Stuart Mill “On Liberty” 1859 Rejected paternalism in favor of freedom Proposed the harm principle: That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. 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 sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.”

7. Justification of the Harm Principle • Utilitarianism (Mill) • Mill’s view: if the harm principle is followed, the greatest good for the greatest number will result • Problem: is that true? What if violating rights leads to an increase in the general welfare? E.g. putting an innocent person in jail to avoid violent riots, likely deaths • Lockean justification • People by nature are free and equal • Everyone has an inborn right to life and liberty

8. The Declaration of Independence “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” • Self-evident: • Known to be true by immediate understanding or by definition and requiring no proof or explanation, e.g. “I think therefore I am” • Obviously true to all right-thinking people, esp. morally self-evident • Inalienable: • Cannot be denied, surrendered or taken away

9. Concrete issues regarding paternalism vs. individual rights • Suicide/euthanasia • Motorcycle helmets • Smoking in public places • Smoking privately • Illegal drugs, e.g. marijuana, cocaine, heroin • Refusing life-saving medical treatment on religious grounds for yourself/your children

10. Freedom of speech • In the ideology of the United States, freedom of speech is one of the most important freedoms • Even in the U.S., though, there are restrictions on freedom of speech, e.g. • Slander • Shouting fire in a crowded theater • Calling for overturn of the government • Revealing state secrets • Inciting a riot • Perjury (lying under oath)

11. More restrictions to free speech Many countries have more extensive restrictions to free speech. E.g. Germany the following are illegal: • Insult • Malicious gossip • Hate speech • Holocaust denial • Rewarding and approving crimes • Insulting faiths and religious beliefs

12. Setting boundaries • What kind of limits to free speech are justifiable? • Is causing offensive considered causing harm (hence falling under the harm principle?) • What about offensive language, pornography, satirizing political and religious leaders • Some use of symbols are protected by freedom of speech laws and some aren’t, e.g. wearing a swastika, burning the flag, defacing a picture of the king

13. Defending the guilty Another related right which is widely recognized as a fundamental human right is the right to a fair trial All people accused of a crime are entitled to the best possible defense Is it wrong for a lawyer to defend someone he thinks is guilty? No, because: • A defending lawyer is not a judge. It is not his job to decide if his client is guilty, but to put his client’s case to the judge as strongly as possible • Judges and juries make judgments, not lawyers • If lawyers refused to defend people who seem guilty, then seeming guilty would be tantamount to being guilty – without a trial

14. Defending the guilty idea • Ideas, like people, need defense • The public are the judge, not the state or a state-appointed authority • Seemingly wrong ideas should be defended as vigorously as possible, so the public can make an informed decision • Examples: communism is good, capitalism is good, women are inferior, smoking is not bad for your health, gun control is unnecessary • Defending ideas legitimately can involve promoting controversial views and philosophies, finding and promulgating evidence and putting facts into favorable contexts, but not lying.

15. Mill’s defense of the free promulgation of mistaken or morally repugnant ideas • An idea that seems wrong might be right. Only open debate can ensure that we eventually arrive at the truth. • Outlawing the expression of a wrong-headed idea doesn’t get rid of the idea, but just drives it underground. • Countering wrong-headed ideas requires the correct ideas to be clarified and sometimes improved “…there ought to exist the fullest liberty of professing and discussing, as a matter of ethical conviction, any doctrine, however immoral it may be considered…. If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.” (Mill, On Liberty)

16. “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” (Evelyn Beatrice Hall, describing the beliefs of Voltaire) “Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend” 百花齐放，百家争鸣 (Mao Zedong)

17. Suggested readings • J.S. Mill, “On Liberty”, full text at: www.serendipity.li/jsmill/on_lib.html • Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entry on Paternalism • “The Ethics of Justice: Why Criminal Defense Lawyers Defend the Guilty”, Ethics Scoreboard at: www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/defense.html • Ronald Bayer, “Ethics of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention” at: www.asph.org/UserFiles/Module6.pdf