Considering the definition of what paternalism is, we can say that this is the interference of a state or an individual in the affairs of another against his will. At the same time, the assertion that he will be better or that the individual will be protected from harm acts as protection or motivation. This problem arises in relation to restrictions provided by law (paternalism of the state), such as anti-drug legislation, mandatory use of seat belts.
This term first appeared at the end of the 19th century as a theory based on the inherent value of personal freedom and autonomy, its ideas were set forth by Immanuel Kant in 1785 and John Stuart Mill in 1859.
Interpretation
The government requires people to contribute to the pension system (social security); requires motorcyclists to wear helmets. It is forbidden to swim on a public beach when there are no lifeguards. It is forbidden to sell various drugs that are considered harmful.
Civil law does not allow the enforcement of certain types of contracts.
All these and many other rules, policies and actions can be implemented for various reasons and justified by various considerations. When they are justified solely by the fact that the individual will be in a better position or suffer less due to compliance with a rule, policy, etc. (although this person would prefer not to use them) - this is an example that explains, in particular, social paternalism .
Problems
As the examples show, the question of this concept arises in many areas of personal and public life. Thus, consideration of the definition of what paternalism is an important area of ​​applied ethics. But this also has some theoretical questions. Perhaps the most important is what authority a state has, acting both under coercion and in terms of incentives.
It also raises questions about how individuals in an institutional or purely personal setting should communicate with each other. How should one think about individual autonomy and its limits? What does it mean to respect the identity of others? What is the compromise, if any, between respecting the welfare of others and respect for their right to make their own decisions?
The essence of the concept
Analysis of the idea of ​​what paternalism includes the following elements. This implies some restriction on the freedom or autonomy of an agent, and this happens for a certain class of reasons. As with many other concepts used in regulatory debate, defining the exact boundaries of a concept is a moot point.
And, as often happens, the first question is whether the concept itself is normative or descriptive. Is applying the concept a matter of empirical definition, so if two people disagree about applying to a particular case, they disagree on some fact or definition? Or do their disagreements reflect different views on the legality of the application in question?
Although it is obvious that for some to characterize politics as paternalistic means to condemn or criticize it, this does not mean that the term itself is evaluative. Based on the analysis of what paternalism is, it is preferable from the point of view of methodology to see if a concept can be defined in abusive terms and only if it is not able to cover the corresponding phenomena in order to adopt a normative definition.
If in order to solve any of the above issues it is necessary to solve a regulatory question, for example, does someone have the right to some information, then the concept is not purely descriptive. Ultimately, the question of how to clarify the conditions and which conditions to use is a matter of philosophical judgment. The term “paternalism”, used in the usual context, may be too amorphous to think about specific regulatory issues.
Kinds
Soft paternalism is the opinion that the only conditions under which state paternalism is justified are related to the situation when it is necessary to determine whether the person who is being interfered is acting voluntarily and knowledgeably. On the contrary, strict paternalism implies interference even if the individual has relevant information about the situation.
Narrow paternalism concerns only issues of state coercion, i.e., the use of legal coercion. Broad paternalism refers to any paternalistic actions: state, institutional or individuals.
Weak paternalism believes that it is legitimate to intervene in the means that agents choose to achieve their goals, if these tools can help achieve them. So, if a person really prefers safety to convenience, then it is legal to force him to fasten his seat belts.
Strong paternalism believes that people may have erroneous, confusing, or irrational goals, and it is perfectly legal to intervene to prevent them from achieving them. If a person really prefers the wind to blow his hair, for his own safety it is legal to force him to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, because his goals are irrational or erroneous.
Moral issues
The usual justification for paternalism relates to the interests of a hindered person. These interests are defined in terms of things that make a person’s life better. In particular, the physical and psychological state. These are things such as death, suffering, or painful emotional states that are in question.
However, sometimes supporters of government intervention seek to protect the moral well-being of a person. In this case, you need to understand what moral paternalism is - it is an intervention aimed at improving the character or qualities of a person and, consequently, his well-being, and an intervention aimed at making someone better, even if the result does not suit the individual to the benefit.
Finally, it is important to distinguish paternalism from other ideas used to justify interference in people's affairs. Even cases where the intervention is not justified in terms of protecting or promoting the interests of others. In particular, moral paternalism should be distinguished from legal moralism, that is, the idea that certain modes of action are morally wrong or degrading and may be prohibited.