Is Hard Paternalism Justified?

We can often see paternalism in our lives.In order to figure out the justifed paternalistic interventions,Joel Feinberg proposed soft paternalism and hard paternalism,and resolutely opposed hard paternalism based on a systematic soft-paternalistic theory.Feinberg’s views has been criticized in two aspects,critics argued that: First,there were problems of the way in which Feinberg distinguished soft paternalism from hard paternalism.Second,Feinberg’s adoption of flexible “variable standard” view is a compromise to hard paternalism.Feinberg can respond to these criticisms by hypothetical consent,empirical presuppositions,and the “variable standard” view.However,as the analysis continued to deepen,we find that there are some conflicts in the statements of Feinberg’s soft paternalism theory.Even a well-meaning interpretation cannot solve the problem that the determination of voluntariness is excessively strict and inconsistent.That is because Feinberg has taken the well-being of the agent as a factor in determining voluntariness,which made his position secretly compromised with hard paternalism.Feinberg’s soft-paternalistic theory is based on the concept of personal sovereignty.However,he did not prove that we have it.He only resorted to our intuition.When the intuition to respect personal autonomy conflicts with the intuition to protect personal well-being,some scholars abandoned “the soft-paternalist strategy” and began to be in favor of “the balancing strategy”.In fact,the balancing strategy does not,and never intends to place individuals under the full supervision of the state.Before the soft paternalist can put forward a strong argument against it,the balancing strategy is a more attractive option.Hard paternalistic intervention is justified in some circumstances.