Abstract

Over the last ten years or so, John Stuart Mill’s position on paternalism has been thoroughly re-examined by philosophers. The majority view now seems to be that it is unreasonable to rule out paternalism altogether. The argument is often couched in vaguely utilitarian terms: the benefit of a particular paternalistic measure may so clearly outweigh the disadvantage, if there is any, that it is utterly unreasonable to object to it. For instance, it is unreasonable to object to a law enforcing the wearing of seat belts when driving, given the enormous benefits and the minor irritation of having to conform.