douglas todd: paternalism to the right. paternalism to the left.
opinion: we're incredibly inconsistent about whether to be paternalistic about wearing masks, declaring gender pronouns, fighting obesity, etc.
4 minute read
does society have the right to tell women and men they should not sell their bodies? a paternalistic person would say yes. an anti-paternalist would say no. that's just one dilemma over when society should act like a benevolent parent.
grinvalds
/
getty images/istockphoto
it’s the question that links canada’s debates over free street drugs, wearing face masks, declaring gender pronouns, combating obesity, involuntary medical treatment, assisted suicide, prostitution and seatbelts. how “paternalistic” are we prepared to be?
how far are we ready to go to reduce the autonomy of individuals in order to, basically, protect them from themselves? and, in some cases, stop them harming others?
it won’t be shocking to hear politicians and the public are incredibly inconsistent on this philosophical issue. many end up being hypocritical about it. sometimes they tacitly support paternalism. sometimes they oppose it.
the lack of a systematic approach is somewhat understandable. philosophers have for years probed the intricacies of paternalism — in which the state or individuals interfere (like a parent) with the free will of another person, to help them.
today’s most oft-cited expert on paternalism is philosopher gerald dworkin, who is among those noting that while conservatives are associated with paternalism and liberals with libertarianism, both are extremely unpredictable on it.
in the 20th century most of us decided to go along with certain paternalistic impositions, such as mandatory seatbelts, to protect drivers and passengers whether they like it or not.
advertisement
but most contemporary debates involving moral paternalism are nasty, since they’re often based on feelings and prejudice than logic. here are a few of the big ones.
can paternalism work with drug addiction?
should addicted people be supplied free street drugs, even though they’re not good for you? is it better to offer a so-called safe supply or nudge users toward abstention?
the trend in canada, especially b.c., has been to a non-paternalistic approach. but recently the tide is shifting a bit more to paternalism, partly as a result of high-profile stranger assaults and other crimes related to addictions and mental illnesses.
still, contradictions abound. governments’ campaigns to avoid stigmatizing street drug users this year collided philosophically with a paternalistic counter-trend. it was led by ottawa health officials who strongly recommended no amount of another drug, alcohol, is safe. paternalistically, they pronounced no one should consume more than two standard drinks a week, albeit without making it law.
the fiery debate over mandatory face masks was just one of many during the pandemic that revolved around paternalism, to much philosophical confusion.
graham hughes
/
the canadian press
pandemic decrees, including for mandatory masks
the fiery debate over mandatory face masks was just one of many during the pandemic that revolved around paternalism.
advertisement
conservatives, especially in the form of the truckers convoy, often acted like champions of individual autonomy, against paternalism. they didn’t want mandatory masks, compulsory vaccinations, travel restrictions or anti-maskers fired from health-care jobs.
at the other end of this spectrum, so-called liberals, usually known to stand up for individual freedoms, often vehemently supported health officers’ coercive methods for protecting individual and collective health.
involuntary mental health treatment
should mentally ill people, including those addicted to drugs, be subjected to “involuntary treatment” because they are demonstrably incompetent in regard to their own self-interest? and do large mental-health institutions deny someone’s full humanity?
the forces of anti-paternalism in the past maintained that people with mental illness and addictions should live in the community. many thought they should not be subjected to monitoring or even moderate care. they should have autonomy.
recent views on who is actually capable of making beneficial decisions for themselves are becoming more nuanced in b.c., however, with more involuntary hospitalizations.
advertisement
combating obesity
is it paternalistic to remind someone that being obese is harmful to their health? and should we intervene when parents’ habits are fostering obesity in their children? many argue you can’t say anything because that is “fat-shaming.” it’s a dilemma worth figuring out.
should we be paternalistic about suicide?
another news subject that centres on paternalism is assisted suicide, where the liberals are taking an extreme position for choice.
ottawa is going further than virtually any other government toward protecting the so-called right to a medically assisted death, known euphemistically as maid. the latest move is to open the door for mentally ill people to get help to kill themselves.
at the other end, vancouver councillors and others have spent taxpayers’ dollars on erecting “suicide fences” on the burrard and second narrows bridges. they’ve not been alone in paternalistically trying to stop people from choosing to end their own lives.
compulsory gender pronouns
universities, governments and others in “progressive’ circles are pressing staff to add their gender pronouns to email signatures, to ostensibly show support for transgender people.
a poll by the association for canadian studies found, while the majority don’t identify their pronouns, 14 per cent think doing so should be compulsory. most are under age 35, a cohort that normally opposes policing the morality of others.
advertisement
the transgender debate also highlights the libertarian position of activists who fight for people to get the legal benefits that go along with identifying their gender identity.
but that goes against another progressive cause, which is to ally with indigenous people who say no one has the right to identify themselves as indigenous if they don’t have sufficient indigenous “blood quantum.” right or wrong, this paternalistic position goes against allowing individuals to express their identity.
is it paternalistic to remind someone that being obese is harmful to their health? many argue you can’t do so because it’s “fat-shaming” and threatens free choice.
ahmet yarali
/
getty images/istockphoto
prostitution
does society have the right to tell women and men they cannot make money selling their bodies for sex? a paternalistic person could generally say yes — because that protects the dignity of the person and society.
prostitution, however, is another issue that is not proscribed by politics of the left and right. an anti-paternalistic thinker would stand up for people staying in the sex trade, even if they believe it’s degrading.
these ethical dilemmas are not easy. sometimes it’s beneficial to act like a parent for another adult. other times it’s not so clear they can’t be responsible for themselves.
that’s all the more reason to become aware of the paradoxes of paternalism: it would make us more consistent about where and when we believe it’s a good thing to impose society’s will on others.
