Paternalism, coercion and the unimportance of (some) liberties

Sarah Conly

Behavioural Public Policy, 2017, vol. 1, issue 2, 207-218

Abstract: Some object to paternalism when it forecloses options – when it makes it impossible, or at least very difficult, to pursue a particular course of action. This is because some argue that liberty is intrinsically valuable, and that to have liberty is to have options; thus, to lose options is to lose something intrinsically valuable. On that account, even if the loss of an option can be justified by gains of other intrinsically valuable things, it should be regarded as a loss. I argue that, in fact, some options have no value, so that their loss is not in itself even pro tanto bad. And, when losing options makes it more likely that we will achieve greater welfare, the loss of options is an unqualifiedly good thing. Thus, coercion, which removes some options, is not necessarily a bad thing in itself, and its loss can often be easy to justify.

Date: 2017
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (4)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:cup:bpubpo:v:1:y:2017:i:02:p:207-218_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Behavioural Public Policy from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().