Week 12 Part 2

Front 1

What is paternalism?

Back 1

Paternalism (the view that the government has the right to protect you from yourself, even if it means that your explicit, manifest choices are not respected) is out of fashion these days. Many people, (libertarians are the most extreme example) take it for granted that the government is not allowed to do something that goes against our choices, even if our choice causes us harm. In other words, many people (especially libertarians) think that we have a right to choose to wreck our own lives. We are adults, after all. We are not five years old, and the government is not our parents, you can imagine a libertarian saying)

Front 2

What is the difference between a choice based notion of rights and an interest based notion of rights? Which notion of rights pretty obviously conflicts with paternalism?

Back 2

One of the central roles of government is to uphold our basic rights. What are our basic rights?

Choice based view of rights: They think that we have a basic right to choose whatever we want. People who believe this tend to be against paternalism, since paternalism (everyone agrees) often involves the government ignoring or constraining our manifest choices.

Interest based view of Rights: They think that our basic right is only to do things that are in our own best interest. people who believe hold an interest based view of rights tend to be are more sympathetic to paternalism, since they argue that there are cases in which our interests and our manifest choices come apart (contradict one another). In such cases they claim, the govt ought to ignore our choices in the name of upholding our basic right to act in our self interest. The problem, however, with many brands of interest based rights is that they seem totally uninterested in what people actually want. And paternalistic views that totally ignore what people want are dangerous - they give the government too much.

The choice based view of rights conflicts with paternalism.

Front 3

How does Goodin think that one can hold an interest based view of rights without totally ignoring what individuals actually want.

Back 3

Goodwin favours an interest based view of rights, but interprets 'interests' in a particular way - a way that actually equates our interests to the choices that we will make or would make under the right conditions. Such a view of interests, says Goodwin, allows us to have an interest based view of rights without falling into the dangerous trap of ignoring what individuals actually want. It also allows us to make room for a plausible and harmless kind of paternalism. it should become clear as to why, as we go.

Front 4

According to Goodin, what is one big requirement for paternalistic intervention?

Back 4

Paternalistic intervention is acceptable only in cases in which the stakes are huge and irreversible. Stated differently, paternalistic intervention is appropriate only when people might make a horrible mistake that they cannot recover from (and as such, learn from) e.g dropping out of school, or taking a drug that is immediately addictive.

Front 5

For all cases in which the stakes are huge and the decision is irreversible, what four types of scenarios would each justify paternalistic intervention, according to Goodin?

Back 5

The four types of scenarios are:

1) If your manifest preferences are not your relevant preferences, then the government has the right to ignore your manifest choices (i.e to be paternalistic)

2) If your manifest preferences are not your settled preferences, then the government has the right to ignore your manifest choices (i.e to be paternalistic)

3) If your manifest preferences are not your preferred preferences, then the government has the right to ignore your manifest choices (i.e to be paternalistic)

4) If your manifest preferences are not your own preferences, then the government has the right to ignore your manifest choices (i.e to be paternalistic)

Front 6

What is a relevant preference, according to Goodin? Why does Goodin claim that Cipollone's preference were irrelevant?

Back 6

If someone has a preference (i.e makes a choice) formed on deception, and they would change their mind if they knew the truth, then the government does not have to respect that preference(that choice). It is an 'irrelevant preference.' A relevant preference is on that a person would still have if they knew the truth. So in Cipollone's case, her preference to smoke was irrelevant because it was formed on false advertising (which claimed that smoking is safe). She plausibly would not have started smoking in the first place if she had known the truth about the risks.

Front 7

What is a settled preference, according to Goodin.Why does Goodin thin that Cipollone's preferences were (at one point in her life), not settled?

Back 7

For a preference to be settled is for it to be the case that you are not going to change your mind. For a preference to be unsettled is for it to be the case that it is just a phase. A lot of teens say that they know the risks of smoking and prefer a shorter cooler life, to a longer less cool one. But that is just a phase. Give teens a few years and they are sure to feel differently. We know this empirically. So the government can ignore their choices (can ignore their manifest preferences. And surely Rose Cipollone was in this situation when she was younger. Of course, it is not easy to say how long as preference has to last to count in order to be called ;settled;. Also it is not clear why having a preference later is better than earlier (which the account seems to take for granted. These are issues that Goodin needs to figure out. though they could turn into potential problems for him.

Front 8

What are preffered preferences, according to Goodin? What was Cipollone's preferred preferences?

Back 8

People have conflicting preferences all the time, but some of those will be preferred (for any conflict, there may be one preferred preference). Smokers generally have a preference to smoke (because they would rather not have a preference to smoke). This was surely Cipollone's situation. Again, for a person who smokes but is always trying to stop, it is lear that their preferred preference is to be a non smoker. The state is obligated only to respect the preferred preference (and to ignore the other preference), says Goodin. Is that really bad?

Front 9

According to Goodin, what is the difference between a preference that is your own and a preference that is not your own. What does this issue have to do with the government's right to regulate advertising?

Back 9

It is possible to make choices that are not your own - if you have been hypnotized, brainwashed for example. We do not have to respect the preferences of cult members, for instance. And brainwashing is what advertising does (to a degree), by using subliminal claims and images to 'bypass judgement'. So government could potentially regulate (ban) advertising on that basis. True, claims that you came to believe on the basis of advertising might now be 'your own' but that does not mean that government has to let advertisers smuggle them into your head in the first place (nor does government have to respect those beliefs when you first form them).

Front 10

If what Goodin says is correct, what are the practical consequences for tobacco regulation?

Back 10

If what Goodin says is correct, the government has the right to ban the sale of tobacco altogether, or to restrict it - make it available by perception to registered users only. Or perhaps we should make them difficult and expensive to obtain, or to ban or prohibit it in all sorts of public places.