Ceci N'est Pas Un Choice: Musings on Paternalism

Paternalism. These days, the word has taken on an almost entirely negative connotation. And yet, paternalism is everywhere, whether we realize it or not. By manipulating subtle things like the order in which food is presented in a buffet line, or the particular type of voting procedure used in an election, authority figures can steer us toward making a particular decision without our ever being consciously aware that they are doing so.

Sometimes this is a good thing: in the buffet line example, putting dessert at the end of the line makes people less likely to eat it, which in the long run probably rebounds to their benefit. On the other hand, many people derive great pleasure and enjoyment from things that paternalistic worldviews would advocate abolishing, such as gambling, smoking, and other risky endeavors.

We do not encounter paternalism solely on a personal scale, though. Much of international relations, such as attempts to spread democracy into the developing world, can be conceptualized as paternalism writ large. Even if it is true that Country X would be better served as a democracy than as whatever it currently is, as soon as another country does anything more than talk to them about it, they have crossed the line.

Most discussions about paternalism get bogged down here, as they attempt to decide whether paternalism qua paternalism is a good or a bad thing. I don’t want to do that. Paternalism is inevitable. We are human beings, and one of the things that human beings do, particularly in politics, is try to win other human beings over to their side of an argument. Clearly there should be some limits on what sorts of persuasive tactics are acceptable: rational discourse is OK, Russian roulette is not. But paternalism, or at least all but the most heinously coercive forms thereof, must fall within the acceptable realm. How would you outlaw it without simultaneously preventing experts from using their knowledge to improve people’s lives?

I am of course willing to acknowledge that at times, paternalism may impinge on an individual’s “freedom of choice.” But there are also instances when it is unarguably better for the person in question to make one decision or the other. It is impossible to eliminate bias and outside influence from any human decision, and to rail indiscriminately against paternalism is to attempt to do so. Furthermore, to say that paternalism is unequivocally bad is to commit the very offense that is being condemned: attempting to impose your view of what is best for people upon them.

So what can we do? Tell people about ways in which sleazy salesmen might try to scam them; make psychological research commonly available; refuse to use military force if another country wants to continue to do things its own way. All of these are productive ways to combat malicious forms of paternalism. But don’t crusade against paternalism per se in the name of Choice.