Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-dc8c957cd-s7h52 Total loading time: 0.594 Render date: 2022-01-29T12:50:54.389Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Chapter 10 - A psychological defense of paternalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 February 2013

Christian Coons
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, Ohio
Michael Weber
Affiliation:
Bowling Green State University, Ohio
Get access

Summary

Introduction

Visceral objections often exist to policies seen as “paternalistic.” Terms like “Big Brother” and the “nanny state” invoke the dire specter of government intrusion into individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Indeed, “paternalism” itself is often a term of opprobrium, used to disparage or reject policies without necessarily addressing their merits or demerits. Economists are traditionally hostile to paternalism; public policy-makers and legal academics tend to be as well. Even those recognizing the implications of social science research indicating that individuals tend to make non-optimal decisions and to be vulnerable to a host of cognitive and emotional biases, hesitate in acknowledging the paternalistic implications of their results. Public opinion, too, is seen to oppose paternalistic policies; citizens are presumed to object to any government infringement on their rights or autonomy. Opposition tends to focus on such autonomy objections – emphasizing a libertarian ideal that each person prefers, and should be free, to make his own decisions, even if those decisions result in negative outcomes for the individual. If they do, the argument runs, then they will learn from those mistakes. Taking such objections into account, some scholars, as something of a compromise, have developed alternatives to traditional paternalism – e.g., “light,” “libertarian,” or “asymmetric” paternalism – that they argue accrue benefits to non-optimal decision-makers but retain autonomy of choice as much as possible.

Type
Chapter
Information
Paternalism
Theory and Practice
, pp. 197 - 215
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)
5
Cited by

Send book to Kindle

To send this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Send book to Dropbox

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Send book to Google Drive

To send content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×