The Right to Err: The Autonomy Argument Against Paternalism
Why respect for the person requires recognizing an individual’s right to make risky, foolish, and plainly mistaken decisions concerning themselves.
The strongest argument against paternalism is not about benefit but about respect. It holds that an adult has the right to be wrong about matters concerning only themselves.
The harm principle and its radius
Mill formulates the sole ground for coercing an individual against their will — the prevention of harm to others; a person's own good is not a sufficient warrant (On Liberty, ch. I). Everything that concerns only the person themselves falls outside society's authority.
Autonomy: why "one's own" outweighs "the right one"
The key argument is that a way of life is good not because it is objectively the best, but because it is one's own. Even a suboptimal choice made independently carries a value that no imposed "correct" option can replace (On Liberty, ch. III).
Soft and hard paternalism
Analytic philosophy distinguishes soft and hard paternalism: the soft variety permits intervention only when a choice is involuntary (ignorance, coercion, incapacity), the hard variety even when it is fully voluntary (SEP: Paternalism). The autonomy argument strikes precisely at the hard variety.
The sovereignty of the person
Joel Feinberg develops soft paternalism and the notion of personal sovereignty: the boundary runs along the voluntariness of a decision, not its reasonableness. The territory concerning only the person themselves is closed to outside interference.
Paternalism as symbolic disrespect
Paternalism is problematic not only in its consequences. Symbolically, it expresses distrust of a person's capacity to govern themselves — that is, it is a form of disrespect and infantilization (SEP: Paternalism). Even an intervention that "worked" can be demeaning.
The limits of the argument
Mill himself pushes the principle to its limit: a person may not be allowed to sell themselves into slavery, because doing so destroys the very freedom for whose sake freedom is valued. The autonomy argument, then, is not absolute — it stops where a choice destroys the future capacity to choose.
Excerpts and dates
- 01к разделу «Принцип вреда и его радиус»
Принцип вреда
«The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.»
Перевод: единственная цель, ради которой власть может быть законно применена к члену цивилизованного общества против его воли, — предотвращение вреда другим.
- 02к разделу «Автономия: почему «своё» важнее «правильного»»
Ценность собственного образа жизни
«If a person possesses any tolerable amount of common sense and experience, his own mode of laying out his existence is the best, not because it is the best in itself, but because it is his own mode.»
Перевод: если человек обладает сколько-нибудь сносным здравым смыслом и опытом, его собственный способ устроить свою жизнь — лучший, не потому что он лучший сам по себе, а потому что это его собственный способ.