He strongly emphasises the idea, that this decision that the subject makes must not sacrifice some future freedom. He uses this to defend paternalism to prevent slavery. When a labourer …show more content…
Joel Feinberg says that hard paternalism has all the characteristics of soft paternalism, and the point where it differs is when the consent of the subject ceases to have any significance. Where soft paternalism would say that the State must control only ‘impaired’ choices, hard paternalism would eliminate the question of choice. For Hard Paternalism to be exercised, roughly four requisites must be satisfied. Firstly, the paternalism must restrict the liberty of the individual; secondly, it must somehow be for the welfare of the subject; thirdly, this motive of welfare must be different from what the subject desired to do; and most importantly, the paternalism must completely disregard any notion of consent or voluntariness on part of the subject. Further, for the autonomy of a subject to be truly impaired, as hard paternalism does, three conditions must be satisfied: she must be capable of exercise voluntariness, she must not be under any coercion, she must be completely aware of the consequences of her conduct. It is these conditions that distinguish soft paternalism from hard paternalism. In fact, Soft paternalism may or may not be paternalism at all, but hard paternalism undoubtedly is paternalism as it intervenes even in the area of voluntary