Mill's Views On Paternalism

A law or restraint is considered to be paternalistic if the recipient of said restriction is the very individual who is being controlled. Paternalism, in essence, is the interference of another person’s life in opposition to their will; this act of forced direction and supervision is safeguarded by the assertion that the inhibited individual would benefit from the imposed limitation, and thus will not cause harm to their self or others in the long run. However, there are many varieties and forms of paternalism, most notably in regard to legality and morality. Legal paternalism is when the government prohibits people from doing harm to themselves or others. As such, one’s respective local authority would forbid an individual’s possible course
He openly believes that the state should strongly enforce moral paternalism upon its people. Plato believed that individuals were incapable of achieving personal happiness on their own. As a result, they were not able to comprehend what was good or bad for them. Consequently, they needed the guidance and direction from their leaders in order to attain personal satisfaction. Plato worried that without the influence of paternalism, the overall morality of a nation would suffer; the righteous nature of a nation’s populace could fall victim to corruption. For instance, Plato would shun prostitution. By way of illustration, in the United States, in the majority of states, streetwalking and whoring is illegal. Many consider solicited sex immoral due to its degradation of the female body in return for money. Inevitably, Plato would support this outlawing of prostitution and would argue that it is wrong to sell one’s body in exchange for financial reasons, as he is concerned with the preservation of one’s spiritual integrity. Conversely, Mill would argue that a person is entitled to make his or her own decisions. This assertion is because the an individual must live with their own consequences of their actions, their daily lives should not the concern of others. This theory is evident when Mill writes, “one’s own moral good is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so… because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right" (p. 14 ???). Mill concludes that no matter what others believe, an individual should be free to live his or her life as they please. Just because one’s actions may seem unfavorable to others, does not mean it must be prohibited. Furthermore, morality should have no influence on their actions. This understanding is a major point of contention between both Plato and Mill. As a consequence,