capitalism

370 Paternalism
goods “cannot be procured by war so cheaply or so commodiously
as by commerce,” liberal republics make every
effort to avoid war because “war never can be in the interest
of a trading nation.” Commerce encourages the establishment
of a “pacific system, operating to unite mankind
by rendering nations, as well as individuals, useful to each
other.” Its salutary effects are substantial inasmuch as universal
commerce would “extirpate the system of war” and
go beyond the interests of particular states to serve the
interests of humankind.
Despite Paine’s suspicions regarding the benefits of
government intrusion into social relationships, he later
advocated that it play a more active role in society. He
called for a system of public education and supported the
division and redistribution of large landed estates.
However, he attributed the need for such reforms to previous
abuses of state power in Europe and believed that they
were unnecessary in the United States. The main thrust of
his political philosophy remained a classical liberal one,
and his life and writings consistently reflect that tradition
in the nature of his support for the French and American
Revolutions.
See also American Revolution; Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of the Citizen; French Revolution; Peace and Pacifism;
Revolution, Right of; Rights, Natural
Further Readings
DMF
Aldridge, A. Owen. Thomas Paine’s American Ideology. Newark:
University Press of Delaware, 1984.
Claeys, Gregory. The Political Thought of Thomas Paine.
Winchester, UK: Unwin Hyman, 1989.
Fruchtman, Jack. Thomas Paine: Apostle of Freedom. New York:
Four Walls Eight Windows, 1994.
Keane, John. Tom Paine: A Political Life. Boston: Little, Brown, 1995.
PATERNALISM
Paternalism refers to the practice of interfering with a person’s
freedom and personal autonomy for his or her own
good. The term evokes the idea of a family led by a benevolent
father who looks after his wife and children, even if
that should involve sometimes defying their desires and
forcing them to do what he knows will best secure their
welfare. Although individuals may treat one another paternalistically,
such as a doctor who lies to a patient about a
life-threatening illness to save her from grief, the term is
typically applied to government legislation aimed at forcing
people to make certain choices for their own good.
Laws against drug use, mandating the use of seat belts, and
the prohibition against voluntary euthanasia are generally
intended to keep individuals from harming themselves,
whether they like it or not. The view that such laws are
legitimate is called legal paternalism or narrow paternalism
to distinguish it from broad paternalism, which
includes the private application of paternalistic coercion.
Legal or narrow paternalism comes in a number of varieties;
soft paternalism is often distinguished from what has
been called hard paternalism. The hard paternalist supports
laws that prohibit or mandate that individuals make certain
choices. The soft paternalist leaves open some space for
choice, but deploys coercion more subtly, manipulating
behavior through propaganda, by encouraging and discouraging
choices through subsidies and taxes, and by throwing
up impediments to voluntary action, such as the requirement
to acquire a license or undergo a waiting period
before undertaking a certain activity.
Another distinction within legal paternalism centers on
the way one conceives of where the good or the interest
of an individual is located. Torquemada, the Spanish
Inquisitor, may be said to have acted paternalistically in torturing
individuals to confess their sins insofar as he did this
intending to save them from damnation to eternal hellfire,
which he believed to be infinitely worse than the pain of the
rack. For Torquemada, the true nature of the interests of the
individual had been revealed by religious texts and authorities.
This kind of religious paternalism, based on a theological
conception of the individual good, exists today in a
number of theocratic Islamic societies and occasionally
rears its head even in relatively secular societies. This view
is often closely related, although not identical, to moral
paternalism. Pornography, for example, is often banned to
protect both its producers and consumers from its allegedly
harmful effects on moral character. Welfare paternalism
concerns itself with well-being as understood more broadly.
Laws banning certain fatty foods may be intended to protect
the individual’s physical welfare by keeping them from
making imprudent dietary choices, and this preference may
or may not be considered a moral matter.
Until the emergence of liberal political sentiments in the
17th century, legal paternalism was a rarely questioned feature
of political organization. Throughout recorded history,
slaves have been considered much like older children,
without the full capacity for self-governance. This deficit
required, and therefore allegedly justified, paternalistic
regard from their masters. Aristotle notoriously argued that,
because some individuals lacked a full rational capacity,
they were “natural” slaves and, therefore, required paternalistic
guidance. Aristotle regarded most women as falling
between natural slaves and fully rational men. Although
women were able to reach a complete rational capacity, for
the most part they were too emotional to exercise it reliably
and, therefore, needed paternalistic guidance from fathers
and husbands. This view was common in the West until the