David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Public Reason 2 (2):3-20 (2010)
I first provide an analysis of Joel Feinberg’s anti-paternalism in terms of invalidation of reasons. Invalidation is the blocking of reasons from influencing the moral status of actions, in this case the blocking of personal good reasons from supporting liberty-limiting actions. Invalidation is shown to be distinct from moral side constraints and lexical ordering of values and reasons. I then go on to argue that anti-paternalism as invalidation is morally unreasonable on at least four grounds, none of which presuppose that people can be mistaken about their own good: First, the doctrine entails that we should sometimes allow people to unintentionally severely harm or kill themselves though we could easily stop them. Second, it entails that we should sometimes allow perfectly informed and rational people to risk the lives of themselves and others, though they are in perfect agreement with us on what reasons we have to stop them for their own good. Third, the doctrine leaves unexplained why we may benevolently coerce less competent but substantially autonomous people, such as young teens, but not adults. Last, it entails that there are peculiar jumps in justifiability between very similar actions. I conclude that as liberals we should reject anti-paternalism and focus our efforts on explicating important liberal values, thereby showing why liberty reasons sometimes override strong personal good reasons, though never by making them invalid.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Kalle Grill (2007). The Normative Core of Paternalism. Res Publica 13 (4):441-458.
Erik Malmqvist (2014). Are Bans on Kidney Sales Unjustifiably Paternalistic? Bioethics 28 (3):110-118.
William Glod (2013). Against Two Modest Conceptions of Hard Paternalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2):409-422.
Neil Sinclair (2012). Promotionalism, Motivationalism and Reasons to Perform Physically Impossible Actions. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (5):647-659.
Thomas Uebel (2012). Actions, Reasons and Narratives. Inquiry 55 (1):82 - 101.
Bill Pollard (2003). Can Virtuous Actions Be Both Habitual and Rational? Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 6 (4):411-425.
Zbigniew Jan Marczuk (2010). Reasons for Moral Conduct. Philosophy in the Contemporary World 17 (1):66-77.
Paul K. Moser (1990). Reasons, Values, and Rational Actions. Journal of Philosophical Research 15:127-151.
Thaddeus Mason Pope, Is Public Health Paternalism Really Never Justified? A Response to Joel Feinberg.
Daniel Star (2011). Two Levels of Moral Thinking. Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics 1:75-96.
Richard Arneson (2005). Joel Feinberg and the Justification of Hard Paternalism. Legal Theory 11 (3):259-284.
Added to index2011-08-18
Total downloads102 ( #37,614 of 1,793,090 )
Recent downloads (6 months)20 ( #37,995 of 1,793,090 )
How can I increase my downloads?