Paternalism and Consent

Abstract

I begin with an ordinary, everyday example from which I hope to generalize about the justifiability of paternalism and, to a lesser extent, about the difficulties of justifying paternalism in the criminal law. When permitted to eat anything he chooses, 4-year-old Billy skips his vegetables altogether and eats only his ice cream dessert. His father has tried to explain the reasons to eat a balanced diet, but Billy is unmoved, and has not changed his behavior. Suppose his father comes to you for advice about what to do at their next dinner. I stipulate that the father’s only reason for seeking advice is to improve Billy’s health and welfare by ensuring that he eats a more nutritious meal than if left to his own devices. It seems reasonable for you to recommend that Billy not be permitted to eat his ice cream unless and until he finishes his vegetables. Suppose his father decides to follow your advice. This example not only describes a situation in which Billy is treated paternalistically but also represents a relatively clear case in which the paternalistic treatment is justified. In any event, I make these two assumptions about this case.