Paternalism

argument I am going to discuss how paternalism and the bioethics principles relate to why introducing a tax on sugary drinks is not right option. I will discuss how each aspect of paternalism relates to the bioethics principle. Paternalism is the intentional overriding of one’s known preferences or action, where the person who overrides justifies the action to benefit or avoid harm to others (Mill, 2001) . This theory was introduced by John Stuart Mill. Paternalism can be split into four categories:

autonomy and paternalism. Decision-making would be so much easier if we all maintained our autonomy in making the decision, however, because our decisions do not always abide by autonomistic values paternalistic intervention must occur. The purpose of autonomy is to allow us to choose to do things that affect only ourselves and does not negatively affect those around us. Unfortunately, many choices do, whether we know it or not, involve those in our environment. Paternalism is in place to

LIBERTY AND PATERNALISM John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial

makes paternalism necessary. [Assumption] 2. Paternalism towards adults is problematic. [Assumption] 3. A clear distinction between children and adults must be establish to assure that paternalism does not encroach on the life choices of adults [From Points 1 and 2] 4. The view endorsing paternalism for children but not for adults cannot be determined by a clear distinction between children and adults. [Argument reached in essay through Point 3] 5. The Utilitarian argument for paternalism also justifies

Kant would definitely not endorse a paternalistic view. Paternalism is deciding for a person for their own good. Kant argues that a lie is “merely an intentionally false declaration towards another man... for it always injures another; if not individual, yet mankind generally (Vaughn 148). In the practice of medicine, there are instances where the truth would be better kept from the patients. However, Kant would not believe in doing this because he believes that we do not have the duty to lie even

LIBERTY AND PATERNALISM      John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have distinctly opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is adamantly against any form of paternalism, whereas Dworkin believes that there do exist circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well being of another person is violated or put at risk. Mill takes on a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom

Paternalism is the idea that slavery benefits African Americans because they are unable to take care of themselves. However, even if this is to be assumed true it is not because African Americans are genetically or otherwise biologically inferior to caucasians

should interfere for the good of the persons involved, in a way that it acts to ensure that there are health warnings on cigarette packages” (Davis, 1993, p.49). To further discuss this notion, discourses surrounding paternalism need to be examined in consideration to boxing. Paternalism is defined as the interference of liberty for what is believed to be for the own good of the individual. This interventionism looks out for the safety of both boxers and the community and therefore looks out for the

In her book Bound for Wedlock, Tera Hunter emphasizes that slaves “were flogged by the rhetoric of paternalism.” Such paternalistic assault on the slaves not only “shifted the blame for their failures away from the beneficiaries of their degradation,” but it also destabilized a slave’s self-expression, self-thought, and self-identity (60). As is illustrated in Ida Adkins’ interview, burdened with physical and mental manipulations, a slave’s psyche, acting as a motive force, inadvertently responded

specifically what is called group soft-paternalism, and that this presence of paternalism is just. Group soft-paternalism is the act of paternalism focused on groups, who may or may not have impaired judgment, as a method to “restrict conduct only when the agent’s decision-making is judged to be substantially non-voluntary or non-autonomous” (Wertheimer, 2011, p. 24). While Wertheimer (2011) admits that there is no perfect model to determine when or if group soft-paternalism is justifiable in use, he submits