Mill vs Dworkin
Mill - Dworkin debate
1. Mill’s utilitarian argument against paternalism
"I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being". Mill does not argue that liberty is a right but rather that giving people liberty has beneficial consequences. Mill thinks that paternalism does not serve the utilitarian purpose (to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people) because the extent that “the most ordinary man or woman” knows about him or herself “immeasurably surpassing” anyone else. Any effort from the state to interfere, even from good intention, tends to lead to “evil” rather than good, since no one knows or cares more about his own interest than himself. As a result, “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest”. The state should not interfere at all, except for when the act can harm others (Mill’s Harm Principle).
Dworkin’s reply to Mill
Dworkin thinks that Mill actually employs two arguments against paternalism. The first argument, explicit, is utilitarian as Mill claims it to be. Dworkin considers this one a weak argument for two reasons. First, in the case of potential self-harm, like taking heroin or driving without seatbelt, there is less evil (and therefore more utility) in paternalistic interference than preserving individual liberty. Second, “a consistent Utilitarian can only argue against paternalism on the grounds that it (as a matter of fact) does not maximize the good”, which is a “contingent question that can be refuted by evidence”. The second argument, implicit, is stronger and based on absolute right. This argument appears when Mill writes that “there is a part of the
1. Mill’s utilitarian argument against paternalism
"I forego any advantage which could be derived to my argument from the idea of abstract right as a thing independent of utility. I regard utility as the ultimate appeal on all ethical questions; but it must be utility in the largest sense, grounded on the permanent interests of man as a progressive being". Mill does not argue that liberty is a right but rather that giving people liberty has beneficial consequences. Mill thinks that paternalism does not serve the utilitarian purpose (to provide the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people) because the extent that “the most ordinary man or woman” knows about him or herself “immeasurably surpassing” anyone else. Any effort from the state to interfere, even from good intention, tends to lead to “evil” rather than good, since no one knows or cares more about his own interest than himself. As a result, “Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest”. The state should not interfere at all, except for when the act can harm others (Mill’s Harm Principle).
Dworkin’s reply to Mill
Dworkin thinks that Mill actually employs two arguments against paternalism. The first argument, explicit, is utilitarian as Mill claims it to be. Dworkin considers this one a weak argument for two reasons. First, in the case of potential self-harm, like taking heroin or driving without seatbelt, there is less evil (and therefore more utility) in paternalistic interference than preserving individual liberty. Second, “a consistent Utilitarian can only argue against paternalism on the grounds that it (as a matter of fact) does not maximize the good”, which is a “contingent question that can be refuted by evidence”. The second argument, implicit, is stronger and based on absolute right. This argument appears when Mill writes that “there is a part of the