What Is Anti-Paternalalism

In his article, “Paternalism and the Ill-Informed Agent,” Jason Hanna refutes the anti-paternalist’s use of the ignorance exception to justify intervention on the ill-informed agent’s behalf. As Hanna sees it, the use of the ignorance exception does not provide the anti-paternalist with any more justification to intervene on the ill-informed agent’s behalf than the justification used by the paternalist to intervene on the fully-informed agent’s behalf. If this is the case, there is no reason for the anti-paternalist to reject the paternalist rationale for intervening on an agent’s behalf in circumstances where the benefits of the intervention outweigh the costs (438). We will begin by examining Hanna’s argument against the anti-paternalist’s …show more content…
Premise Two: If the agent is ignorant of the danger, then anti-paternalism permits intervention.
Premise Three: Ignorance alone allows too much intervention.
Premise Four: If the agent is culpably ignorant, then anti-paternalism permits intervention.
Premise Five: If the agent is culpably ignorant for the sake of ignorance, then anti-paternalism permits intervention.
Premise Six: If the agent is culpably ignorant and would hypothetically consent to the intervention were the relevant information available, then anti-paternalism permits intervention.
Premise Seven: If the agent is culpably ignorant and voluntarily accepts the risk of harm, then anti-paternalism permits intervention.
Conclusion: The anti-paternalist’s justification for intervening on behalf of the culpably ignorant agent is actually a paternalistic justification for …show more content…
On Hanna’s view, if the anti-paternalist’s view justifies intervention in all instances involving agent ignorance, there will be too much interference with personal autonomy. This runs contrary to the anti-paternalist view which would want to justify non-intervention even in certain types of cases involving agent ignorance.

Next, Hanna’s fourth premise illustrates a problem with the anti-paternalist’s modified position involving culpable agent ignorance: “If it is permissible to intervene in self-harmful choices induced by ignorance for which the decision-maker is responsible, then it is permissible to intervene…” (426). According to Hanna, there is no reason to treat the cases of the reckless hiker and the cancer patient differently since both choose to remain ignorant despite the danger; yet the anti-paternalist would agree that intervention is permissible in the reckless hiker case but not the cancer patient