Paternalism in law-making

[Serpent]

This must have come around before, but I haven't seen it lately.
Are all 'paternal' laws intended solely to protect the individual from his own folly, or does society have a legitimate stake in the well-being and safety of its citizens? Should there be such laws as the one mandating seat-belts at all? Should the state stay out of personal risk decisions altogether? If not, is there a discernible, defensible line at which the state should stop interfering?

This article is well presented

While paternalistic practices are relatively common, are they morally acceptable? Paternalism involves a conflict of two important values: 1) the value we place on the freedom of persons to make their own choices about how they will lead their lives, and 2) the value we place on promoting and protecting the well being of others. When people freely choose to act in ways that seem contrary to their own well being, the question of whether we are justified in interfering with their affairs, the problem of paternalism arises.

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/ethics-resources/ethical-decision-making/for-your-own-good/

[charon]

Good point.

When we get sick we're glad of the health services. When there's trouble we can get the police. If we have children we're happy there are professionals to teach them. Not that any of these things are perfect.

But at what point does supporting the citizen become unwelcome interference? Possibly when the citizen is making harmful decisions or actions that impact dangerously on themselves and/or others -

Or, rather, when a minority are. Then the problem is whether there should be laws that protect the foolish while at the same time treat the sensible as though they can't think for themselves.

I think sensible people should understand that many laws which appear to limit their freedom are made for the irresponsible, thus caring for society as a whole.

Probably, at least in the civilised world, many such laws are usually sensible but there'll always be some who want to protest about the least thing. But there is a place for legitimate protest if the authorities become heavy handed and overbearing. Which they can do sometimes.

[Serpent]

Completely agreed. All these anti-mask protests now are not - imo - really about freedom to take risks, but rather about freedom to endanger others.
There is no law against rock-climbing or hang-gliding, probably because the individuals who fall and break their bones are few enough for the emergency services to reassemble - or at least collect. There are laws against climbing downtown buildings, because that endangers bystanders as well as the climber. If rock/mountain climbing became as popular as smoking was, or fast driving without seat-belts, we would have to reconsider.

[Forest_Dump]

It quickly becomes a lot more complicated. We might accept the personal risk if it doesn't endanger others but are we really comfortable if it means a 20 year old becomes a paraplegic for the next 60 years? Still just his bad choice? (What kind of crime, for, example would result in something comparable?) What about if the bad choice made effected a 6 year or 6 month old dependent? Should society step in then? If then then why not before? What exactly does count as a bad choice? Riding a motorcycle at all? Taking a job in a mine? Getting pregnant? Deciding whether or not to regulate hobbies, products industries media etc are always tricky political decisions and always subject to change.

[charon]

Well, teenagers shinning up massively tall buildings and swinging on the scaffolding is technically illegal but boys will be boys and they don't scalp them. Probably admire their guts :-)

You notice they don't fall... strange.

[Serpent]

Oh, but they do sometimes fall. They also get racked up street-racing, catching rides behind trucks and skateboarding on cement stairways. We pick them up, try to fix them and if we can't, take care of them for however long they live -- because that's what a society is supposed to do.
It's not a burden we particularly relish, so we discourage that kind of behaviour. Within reason: always mindful that the young have naturally bad judgment.
Also, a certain amount of danger in any environment, in any activity. In complex, mechanized urban societies, the dangers are everywhere and unavoidable. All we can do is try to minimize and manage the risk of necessary work and optional recreation.

[charon]

...

the young have naturally bad judgment

Not necessarily. You need pretty good judgement to do it at all.

If they fell they'd be stone dead. I've never seen one. Show me.

We pick them up, try to fix them

Who's we? Are you medical?

[Serpent]

...
[the young have naturally bad judgment]
Not necessarily.

Not invariably. However, most societies make some allowance for the recklessness of youth in general.

You need pretty good judgement to do it at all.

Wha...? You need skill, courage, ambition, physical strength, co-ordination - and very, very bad judgment.

If they fell they'd be stone dead.

That happens. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17191637/The severity of damage depends on how high they got before the fall.

I've never seen one.

The paramedics don't leave them lying around for passersby to gawk at. I've seen one in the morgue. Not pretty.

Show me.

I didn't take pictures.

[We pick them up, try to fix them]

Who's we? Are you medical?

I did say 'societies', and yes, I have been medical. Seen a few subway-jumpers, too, a hunter shot by his best friend and a motorcyclist whose helmet, with the head still in, arrived in a separate bag. The young very often do have poor judgement. Sometimes the middle-aged and old do, as well, but we tend not to cut them any slack: it's expected that if you survive to 25, you're responsible for whatever stupid thing you do.
(Peter Pan syndrome is a whole other topic.)
We can't prevent reckless impulses. What most societies do is channel that youthful hubris into sports, law-enforcement and military service.

[charon]

Don't prevaricate. I was only talking about those guys that climb very tall structures and have no fear of heights.

This kind of thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x50D_a2tqSM

I'm not talking, and was not talking, about any idiot who comes a cropper doing something dumb.

[Serpent]

While interesting to a specialized taste, I don't consider that exclusive club highly relevant.

[TheVat]

If the government has a way to tax a risky behavior, it's more likely to be legal.

Alcohol consumption is the classic example in the States. A vast array of risky behaviors arise from alcohol, but it can be sold as a commodity, quite profitably, and it was one of the first sources of tax revenue in the US. And it has the additional attractive feature that its use can be rationalized, e. g. "moderate consumption is safe for most people and enhances social interactions."

[charon]

I think that's true. At least someone had the sense to realise that most people need an escape of some kind and permit the two 'legal' stimulants, alcohol and tobacco.

Naturally, people being people, there are addictions and abuses but there'd be uproar if the nanny state tried to remove them. It would just go underground, like it did in prohibition. But they've made alcohol and tobacco extremely expensive instead.

I don't know about the States but in the UK a pack of smokes would probably retail for about £3 to £4. But they sell for about £12 to £14 these days, which is profiteering if ever I saw it. And you can't sue the govt.

Of course, they say it's to protect us, cut down the burden on the NHS due to related illnesses, and all that. But we're also very aware of the revenue these tax hikes bring in - billions and billions. So there's naturally a sort of simmering resentment because one feels victimised for liking to relax with a smoke and a pint after work, etc.

Of course, the politically correct middle classes laud it, or ignore it because they can afford to, but your average working person doesn't see it that way at all.

[Serpent]

charon -- Of course, they say it's to protect us, cut down the burden on the NHS due to related illnesses, and all that. But we're also very aware of the revenue these tax hikes bring in - billions and billions.

In countries that have national health insurance and reasonably comprehensive social services, those tax revenues go toward the cost of repairing the damage done by the very same risky behaviours being taxed.

So there's naturally a sort of simmering resentment because one feels victimised for liking to relax with a smoke and a pint after work, etc.

Only if one chooses to exercise willful ignorance and connect no dots. Much of the populace does.

Of course, the politically correct middle classes laud it, or ignore it because they can afford to, but your average working person doesn't see it that way at all.

It's possible that the middle class is more 'politically correct' because it's more open to connecting cause-effect dots. Possibly, too, the middle class feels more in control of its life and choices, as well as the political process, and thus not as quick to resent legislative decisions. In countries without universal health care systems, those middle classes also pay considerably higher insurance premiums than the working class.
They may drink just as much, but a lot of them have quit, or are in the process of sincerely trying to quit smoking.

[doogles]

As mentioned in this thread, people have to wear seat belts in cars now, and motor cyclists have to wear helmets. On the other hand, we allow extreme sports performers to kill themselves if they wish.

In line with others in this thread, my guess is that the difference is a matter of quantity.

In the case of motor cyclists for example, I would say that if only one or two suffered head injuries a year, we would not have legislation. But when it runs into hundreds or thousands a year in some countries, the medical and surgical burden of hospitalisation and rehabilitation nursing on society becomes quite significant. Lam et al (2020; Effect of motorcycle helmet types on head injuries: evidence from eight level-I trauma centres in Taiwan | BMC Public Health | Full Text (biomedcentral.com)) reviewed the literature on the safety gains of helmets and concluded that "Studies [1, 5,6,7,8,9] have consistently concluded that helmet use is beneficial in preventing head injuries and subsequently reducing injury severity among motorcyclists."

A similar principle applies in the case of car accidents. There is a review on this site on the usefulness of seat belts by a Road Safety Observatory -- Seat Belts - How Effective? (roadsafetyobservatory.com).

There is another aspect of legislation though that annoys me to some extent. It's not exactly paternalism, but it irks me. That's the circumstance in which we all have to change our ways because of problems relating to small minorities.

Up until I was well into my 40s, almost every household used to have a product called 'Chlorodyne' in their medicine cupboard. If anyone ever had a bout of diarrhoea from any cause, 5 or 6 drops in a glass of water gave certain and quick relief for some hours. It contained morphine and chloroform. Because a few drug addicts had learned how to extract the morphine from it, it became a banned product. Some of our older forum members may remember it. Nothing since could match it for effectiveness.

The same thing happened to an excellent May and Baker product called 'Phensedyl' which was a superb symptomatic for colds and the 'flu'. I was in a one-man veterinary practice for my first 8 years of practice. I could not take time off for sickness and even worked (albeit very slowly) while affected by the Asian Flu in the 1960s. The product contained Ephedrine, Codeine and Phenergan and was a wonderful symptomatic (The ephedrine constricted congested blood vessels and dilated constricted airways; codeine was a cough suppressant; and the phenergan was a depressant antihistamine). Sure, they replaced the ingredients with substitutes, but it was never the same in effect.

The sad part is that the banning of such medicines has not made one scrap of difference to the use of illegal drugs world wide, yet it deprived everyone else of useful medications.

I know that there are many other cases wherein the majority have had to alter their social behavior because of consideration for a minority. I'm having trouble thinking of cases off the top of my head. A very recent broad area involves non-sexist language. Some modifications may be okay, but in the UK recently, an article (Midwives told to stop using terms such as ‘breastfeeding’ and ‘breastmilk’ (smh.com.au)) suggests that midwives no longer use the words 'breastfeeding' or 'breastmilk' when working with transgender patients.

There is now idle talk of replacing the words 'mother' and 'father' with 'gestational parent' and 'non-gestational' parent. The sad thing about these changes is that they do not appear to be based on any kind of research involving the majority of citizens or for that matter, the supposed 'victims' of the use of such terms.

One recent noticeboard on a Melbourne beach even requested that beach-goers refrain from cooking pork products on local beach barbecues out of respect for Muslim minorities. This may be a fair enough consideration in its own right, but where do such adjustments stop?

Should the majority adapt to the minority, or should the minority adapt to the majority?

I remember in the 1990s, the University of Queensland sent around a circular making recommendations for the use of gender-neutral language. As part of their explanation for the rationale, they suggested that the ladies in the office may not like being referred to as the 'ladies in the office'. I found it hard to believe that a university of all places would promote such notions without suitable background research. There were four ladies employed as typists and receptionists in the main office of our department at that time. I asked if any of them were upset or offended at being referred to collectively as 'the ladies in the office'. They all laughed and collectively ridiculed the stupidity of the entire document.

A Wikipedia researcher has discussed some minority rights on this site -- Minority rights - Wikipedia. Obviously there are times when we need to consider minorities.

I suppose each case should be considered on its merits, after much public debate, before recommendations or even legislation is ever proposed.

[Serpent]

I do think suggestions to sensitivity in language and social arrangements are a separate class from actual laws regarding personal safely.

The removal of dangerous and/or addictive substances from otc products is yet another category. That might not be motivated by the minority of addicts, but several other factors. Side-effects may be one such factor. The risk of creating unsuspecting new addicts is another. I'm thinking of ex-PM Brian Mulroney and the cupboard full of Nyquil...

[doogles]

Yes Serpent, my examples re sexist language etc were not really cases of paternalistic law-making, but I guess I'm sensitive to any changes of status quo that aren't based on good evidence.

Actually the main point I hoped to make was that the laws relating to seat belts and motor bike helmets are not so much cases of paternalistic law making, as they are an attempt to lessen one burden of costs on society at large.

When you view the situation from that angle, they are not paternalistic at all.

In fact, I'm having trouble thinking of any genuine paternalistic laws. That may be due to a limit on my own spatial-thinking capacity. Can any members think of any other cases of paternalistic law-making?

[Serpent]

We can look at laws from various points of view. I think which one we choose is largely dependent on how much they effect us. Non-smokers tend to think anti-smoking regulations are perfectly sensible, while unrepentant smokers are more likely to be outraged at this nanny-state intrusion on their personal freedom. But then, if we hadn't been addicted to cigarettes, we wouldn't be inconvenienced by those mimosas who object to walking through a toxic cloud at the food court.

Similarly, habitually polite and sensitive people tend to have only the mildest jocular reaction to 'politically correct' speech, while crude, offensive, unfunny comedians go ballistic if they're asked to stop saying "------" on stage.

Back when I had reservations about seat-belts - not on the grounds of civil rights, but from a fear of physical restraint - a good friend who had them installed in his car took me to a wrecker's yard and showed me all the windshields with head-shaped holes smashed through them. Oh....ah... um... That actually looks like a pretty good reason.
I think if the rationale were so convincingly demonstrated for each new law, people would be more willing to accept limits to their freedom.
And that requirement would also make a good test of a proposed new law. Can't demonstrate it to a skeptic? Go, redraft it!

[charon]

Back when I had reservations about seat-belts - not on the grounds of civil rights, but from a fear of physical restraint - a good friend who had them installed in his car took me to a wrecker's yard and showed me all the windshields with head-shaped holes smashed through them. Oh....ah... um... That actually looks like a pretty good reason.

So that wouldn't class as a paternalistic law... I thought we were trying to think of examples that were paternalistic.

[charon]

https://www.cnbc.com/2012/05/31/America ... -Laws.html

[TheVat]

Almost all laws, in a basic sense, deal with a small minority. Most people tend to follow social norms, exercise some prudence in how they impose on others, and try to do the right thing. If everyone did, there would be few statutes on the books. Laws exist because of the notably foolish, misguided, or sociopathic. I was raised to not lie, cheat, steal, or assault, so 90% or more of laws really don't apply to my life. This is true of most non-sociopaths. This vast majority goes largely unnoticed, as their conduct doesn't make the news.

I think the question of what laws are paternalistic is more about what laws unnecessarily impose state control over interpersonal relations where neither party is doing overt thefts or harms that require intervention from external authorities. Would verbal bullying be an example of this? When I was young, for example, it was widely assumed that people could learn to handle verbal attacks on their own, that this was simply part of becoming an adult. Laws were few, and mostly about public slander/defamation. Many of us came to understand that verbal bullies tended to say more about themselves than they actually said about you. You ignored, fired back, or perhaps did a bit of Oscar Wildean verbal judo. Courts were not involved.

So, do we need them more now, or are we simply more willing to let the state intervene in a parental sort of way? Will try to get back to this -- it's a tricky question. (the best kind for an ethics thread)

[Serpent]

So that wouldn't class as a paternalistic law... I thought we were trying to think of examples that were paternalistic.

It might not be considered so, now that two generations have grown up with it, but in 1968, it was revolutionary, and for over two decades, the idea was contentious. Acrimoniously so. Indeed, when this subject comes up, the seat belt law is a standard point of origin.

When David Hollister introduced a seat belt bill in Michigan in the early 1980s that levied a fine for not buckling up, the state representative received hate mail comparing him to Hitler. At the time, only 14 percent of Americans regularly wore seat belts, even though the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) required lap and shoulder belts in all new cars starting in 1968.

https://www.history.com/news/seat-belt-laws-resistance

The same thing happened with motorcycle helmets, then headlights in the daytime, and then bicycle helmets. These are all situations where the legislature mandates a measure for keeping citizens safe, and some of the citizens object on the grounds that they have a right to take personal risks and it's nobody's business.

Recently, there has been controversy over banning or limiting harmful foods and beverages. To me, that is a different category, because it's regulation of business practice, rather than individual decision-making.

[Serpent]

https://www.cnbc.com/2012/05/31/Americas-Nanny-State-Laws.html

That's a whole basket of things that don't belong together - or even under the auspices of the same state. I'd be happy to consider them individually and suggest both the category in which each example does belong and the graphic test by which it could be assessed.

[TheVat]

The pork on a Melbourne beach, example, btw, seems to attain the level of ridiculous. Any minority that consists of sane people is surely aware that most people may not conform to their particular doctrinal restrictions. A Muslim surely understands that women aren't going to give up their short skirts, people aren't going to cease drinking alcohol, and everyone refrain from pork dishes simply because they exist. This particular case invites reductio ad absurdum. Would I demand that all outdoor barbecues end because I'm a vegetarian? Should we all stop using machinery because Amish people might take offense? A basic social contract in any pluralistic state is that we must not be too thin-skinned and bristle at any customs that don't match our own.

[Serpent]

And every legislative body has to grapple - constantly - with the balance. Of numbers affected, of potential harm, cost-benefit ratio, public safety vs voter disaffection, one interest bloc vs another, and above all, the probability of success over the long term.

Yes, motorcycles have a great potential for fatal and incapacitating accident. Such accidents are costly to the public in several ways. Should they be banned?
But so do cars. Should they be banned?

Of course, yes, to both and both. But it's not practicable. So, the next best possible solution is to reduce the risk, incrementally, by introducing measures to improve the vehicles, the roads, the traffic laws and operator performance.

[charon]

The pork on a Melbourne beach, example, btw, seems to attain the level of ridiculous. Any minority that consists of sane people is surely aware that most people may not conform to their particular doctrinal restrictions. A Muslim surely understands that women aren't going to give up their short skirts, people aren't going to cease drinking alcohol, and everyone refrain from pork dishes simply because they exist. This particular case invites reductio ad absurdum. Would I demand that all outdoor barbecues end because I'm a vegetarian? Should we all stop using machinery because Amish people might take offense? A basic social contract in any pluralistic state is that we must not be too thin-skinned and bristle at any customs that don't match our own.

Pork on the beach. I hadn't heard of that one.

Absurd isn't the word. Who do these ghastly, stupid, brainwashed religious types think they are? If they don't want to look at women or be anywhere near sausage rolls then f-- off back to a Muslim country where they can indulge their prejudice all they like and feel self-righteous with it.

They ought to take a lesson from the Chinese. The Chinese, many from Hong Kong, have come to the West and no one hears a peep from them. We love their food, their firecrackers and dragons, and all that. They're almost the perfect guests.

Contrast that with the rude, bombastic Muslim types who shout and scream that they want their ways to override their hosts'. We want this, we want that! We want Sharia law! We are right, we are perfect, we are true, you are wrong!

And, out of a misplaced sense of tolerance, they're accommodated. Either that or the powers that be are scared of the underlying threat of violence that's always there.

Of course, no one's allowed to say any of this because it's not politically correct. I don't care. To those it applies to, it applies.

One look at their own countries where they're practically back in the Middle Ages says it all. If we went to their countries and shouted we wanted our cultural ways over there how long do you think we'd last?

Makes you wonder why they come to mix with the infidels at all. Funny move to make.

[Serpent]

I wonder where ^that came from!
I'd question some points of fact, but doubt they're on topic.

[charon]

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/multi ... melbourne/

Like I said, you wouldn't get this from any other people that I know. Not the Chinese, not the French, not the Lithuanian, not the Jewish, not the... anyone you like.

Don't think I'm anti-Muslim, I'm not, but I'm horribly anti the sort of mentality that comes into a place and then thinks it can take over. It's ignorant, rude, uncultured, and nobody else does it.

Like I said, if they don't like it why are they here at all?

[Serpent]

I had a notion it might be off topic.

The city of Melbourne tweeted that they do not endorse the sign, noting in a droll aside that they have no beaches in their municipality.

You knew it was fake when you linked the item.
Why?

[TheVat]

It was Doug who first referenced the Melbourne beach thing, though he didn't have a link on it. Glad to hear that it's a fake. I feel I was rather credulous not to have checked it right off the bat. I'm resigning as admin.

Until I've had a good night's sleep, a hearty breakfast, some caffeinated beverage, and a fast jog around the neighborhood. Then I will resume administrating or administering or whatever is called for. Anarchy, probably.

[charon]

I had a notion it might be off topic.

The city of Melbourne tweeted that they do not endorse the sign, noting in a droll aside that they have no beaches in their municipality.

You knew it was fake when you linked the item.
Why?

Because it wasn't immediately seen by everybody as a joke, was it? It just might have been real, which was why somebody bothered to post it at all and why we're talking about it.

Why? You know why, and so do I. We just don't want to think the unthinkable.