Advertisement

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice

, Volume 17, Issue 3, pp 383–397 | Cite as

Governing [through] Autonomy. The Moral and Legal Limits of “Soft Paternalism”

  • Bijan Fateh-Moghadam
  • Thomas Gutmann
Article

Abstract

Legal restrictions of the right to self-determination increasingly pretend to be compatible with the liberal concept of autonomy: they act upon a ‘soft’ or autonomy-orientated paternalistic rationale. Conventional liberal critique of paternalism turns out to be insensitive to the intricate normative problems following from ‘soft’ or ‘libertarian’ paternalism. In fact, these autonomy-oriented forms of paternalism could actually be even more problematic and may infringe liberty rights even more intensely than hard paternalistic regulation. This paper contributes to the systematic differentiation of soft and hard paternalism by discussing the (legal) concept of autonomy and elaborates the moral and legal limits of autonomy-orientated paternalism.

Keywords

Autonomy Soft paternalism Weak paternalism Autonomy-oriented paternalism Libertarian paternalism 

References

  1. Anderson J (2010) Review: nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness, Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein. Econ Philos 26:369–376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baumann P (1995) Handlung, Willensbildung und Macht. Conceptus 72:21–42Google Scholar
  3. Beauchamp T (1977) Paternalism and bio-behavioral control. Monist 60:62–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beauchamp T (2009) The concept of paternalism in biomedical ethics. In: Honnefelder L, Sturma D (eds) Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik 14. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 77–92Google Scholar
  5. Beauchamp T, Childress JF (2009) Principles of biomedical ethics, 6th edn. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Benn SI (1976) Freedom, autonomy, and the concept of a person. Proc Aristot Soc 86:109–130Google Scholar
  7. Benn SI (1988) A theory of freedom. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berofsky B (1995) Liberation from self. A theory of personal autonomy. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bratman M (2005) Planning agency, autonomous agency. In: Taylor J (ed) Personal autonomy: New essays on personal autonomy and its role in contemporary moral philosophy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Buchanan AE, Brock DW (1990) Deciding for others: The ethics of surrogate decision making. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Childress JF (1982) Who should decide? paternalism in health care. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. Christman J (2009) The politics of persons. Individual autonomy and socio-historical selves. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. DeMarco JP (2002) Competence and paternalism. Bioethics 16:231–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Detrick S (1999) A commentary on the united nations convention on the rights of the child. Martinus Nijhoff, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  15. Devlin P (1965) The enforcement of morals. Oxford University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Dworkin G (1983) Paternalism. In: Sartorius R (ed) Paternalism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 19–34Google Scholar
  17. Dworkin G (1988) The theory and practice of autonomy. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dworkin G (2005) Moral paternalism. Law Philos 24:305–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dworkin G (2010) Paternalism, the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Zalta EN(ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2010/entries/paternalism/[3.8.2012]
  20. Dworkin R, Nagel T, Nozick R, Rawls J, Scanlon T, Thomson JJ (1997) Assisted suicide. the philosophers’ brief. New York Rev Books 23(3):41–47Google Scholar
  21. Elster J (1983) Sour grapes. Studies in the subversion of rationality. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Fateh-Moghadam B (2003) Zwischen Beratung und Entscheidung—Einrichtung, Funktion und Legitimation der Verfahren vor den Lebendspendekommissionen gemäß § 8 Abs. 3 S. 2 TPG im bundesweiten Vergleich. Medizinrecht 21(5):245–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fateh-Moghadam B (2008) Die Einwilligung in die Lebendorganspende. Die Entfaltung des Paternalismusproblems im Horizont differenter Rechtsordnungen am Beispiel Deutschlands und Englands. Beck, MünchenGoogle Scholar
  24. Fateh-Moghadam B, Atzeni G (2009) Ethisch vertretbar im Sinne des Gesetzes—Zum Verhältnis von Ethik und Recht am Beispiel der Praxis von Forschungs-Ethikkommissionen. In: Vöneky S, Hagedorn C, Clados M et al (eds) Legitimation ethischer Entscheidungen im Recht—Interdisziplinäre Untersuchungen. Springer, Berlin, pp 115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Feinberg J (1971) Legal paternalism. Can J Philos 1:105–124Google Scholar
  26. Feinberg J (1986) Harm to self. The moral limits of the criminal Law. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  27. First MB (2005) Desire for amputation of a limb: paraphilia, psychosis, or a new type of identity disorder. Psychol Med 35:919–928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Freud S (1972a) Das Ich und das Es (1923). In: Freud S (1972) Studienausgabe. Band III. Fischer, Frankfurt a. M., pp 273–330Google Scholar
  29. Freud S (1972b) Neue Folge der Vorlesungen zur Einführung in die Psychoanalyse (1932). In: Freud S (1972) Studienausgabe. Band I. Fischer, Frankfurt a. M., pp 448–608Google Scholar
  30. Grill K (2007) The normative core of paternalism. Res Publica 13:441–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Habermas J (1973) Erkenntnis und Interesse. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  32. Habermas J (2003) The future of human nature, translated by hella beister and william rehg. Polity, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  33. Hart HLA (1963) Law, liberty and morality. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Hausman DM, Welch B (2010) To nudge or not to nudge. J Polit Philos 18:123–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Husak DN (2003) Legal paternalism. In: LaFollette H (ed) The oxford handbook of practical ethics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 387–412Google Scholar
  36. Jescheck HH, Weigend T (1996) Lehrbuch des Strafrechts. Allgemeiner Teil. Duncker & Humblot, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  37. Jolls C, Sunstein C (2006) Debiasing through law. J Leg Stud 35:199–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kahnemann D, Tversky A (2000) Choices, values and frames. Cambridge University Press, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahnemann D, Slovic P, Tversky A (1982) Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge University Press, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kant I (1902 ff.) Gesammelte Schriften. Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  41. Kleinig J (1983) Paternalism. Rowman and Allanheld, TotowaGoogle Scholar
  42. Mayr E (2010) Grenzen des weichen Paternalismus II—Zwischen Harm Principle und Unvertretbarkeit. In: Vossenkuhl W (ed) Fateh-Moghadam B, Sellmaier St. Grenzen des Paternalismus. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 48–72Google Scholar
  43. Mill J S (1992) On liberty [1859]. In: Mill, On liberty and utilitarianism, with an introduction by Isaiah Berlin. Alfred A. Knopf, New York and TorontoGoogle Scholar
  44. Murmann U (2005) Die Selbstverantwortung des Opfers im Strafrecht. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  45. Noll P (1955) Übergesetzliche Rechtfertigungsgründe im besonderen die Einwilligung des Verletzten. Verlag für Recht und Gesellschaft, BaselGoogle Scholar
  46. Parisi F, Smith VL (eds) (2005) The Law and economics of irrational behavior. Stanford University Press, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  47. Quante M (2002) Personales Leben und menschlicher Tod. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M.Google Scholar
  48. Quante M (2011) In defence of personal autonomy. J Med Ethics 37:597–600CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rachlinski J (2003) The uncertain psychological case for paternalism. Northwest Univ Law Rev 97:1165–1225Google Scholar
  50. Rawls J (1971) A theory of justice. The belknap press of harvard university. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  51. Raz J (1986) The morality of freedom. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  52. Saliger F (2003) Legitimation durch Verfahren im Medizinrecht. In: Bernat E, Kröll W (eds) Recht und Ethik der Arzneimittelforschung. Manz, Wien, pp 124–170Google Scholar
  53. Schmahl S (2012) UN-Kinderrechtskonvention. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  54. Schöne-Seifert B (2009) Paternalismus. Zu seiner ethischen Rechtfertigung in Medizin und Psychiatrie. In: Honnefelder L, Sturma D (eds) Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft und Ethik 14. De Gruyter, Berlin, pp 107–127Google Scholar
  55. Sunstein C (ed) (2000) Behavioral law and economics (Cambridge series on judgment and decision making). Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  56. Sunstein C (2005) Laws of fear: Beyond the precautionary principle. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sunstein C, Thaler R (2003) Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. Univ Chic Law Rev 70:1159–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Taylor Ch (1985a) Self-interpreting animals. In: Taylor Ch: Philosophical papers. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 45–76Google Scholar
  59. Taylor Ch (1985b) What’s wrong with negative liberty. In: Taylor Ch: Philosophical Papers. Vol. 2. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 211–229Google Scholar
  60. Thaler R, Sunstein C (2009) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Trout JD (2005) Paternalism and cognitive bias. Law Philos 24:393–434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Van Aaken A (2006) Begrenzte Rationalität und Paternalismusgefahr: Das Pinzip des schonendsten Paternalismus. In: Anderheiden M, Heinig H, Bürkli P et al (eds) Paternalismus und Recht. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 109–114Google Scholar
  63. Van Aaken A (2007) Das deliberative Element juristischer Verfahren als Instrument zur Überwindung nachteiliger Verhaltensanomalien—Ein Plädoyer für die Einbeziehung diskursiver Elemente in die Verhaltensökonomik des Rechts. In: Engel C, Englerth M, Lüdemann J et al (eds) Recht und Verhalten. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, pp 189–230Google Scholar
  64. VanDeVeer D (1986) Paternalistic interventions. The moral bounds on benevolence. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  65. Wagner E, Fateh-Moghadam B (2005) Freiwilligkeit als Verfahren. Zum Verhältnis von Lebendorganspende, medizinischer Praxis und Recht. Soziale Welt 1:73–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wikler D (1983) Paternalism and the mildly retarded. In: Sartorius R (ed) Paternalism, University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 83–94Google Scholar
  67. Wolfenden Committee (1957) Report of the committee on homosexual offences and prostitution, reprinted 1963 as wolfenden report: report of the committee on homosexual offences and prostitution. Stein and Day, New YorkGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations