BEGIN:VCALENDAR
PRODID:-//Grails iCalendar plugin//NONSGML Grails iCalendar plugin//EN
VERSION:2.0
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTAMP:20260606T094151Z
DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20120711T151500
DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20120711T171500
SUMMARY:Paternalism Al Dente
UID:20260611T203203Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-bd7db559-gt5qm
TZID:Australia/Melbourne
LOCATION:University of Melbourne\, Melbourne\, Australia
DESCRIPTION:<p><strong>Abstract</strong>: Liberals commonly make a distinction between hard paternalism and soft paternalism.&nbsp\; Hard paternalism refers to interventions done to promote the well-being of the agent\, but against her will.&nbsp\; Since hard paternalism involves a violation of personal autonomy\, it is generally taken to be in tension with liberal commitments.&nbsp\; Soft paternalism\, on the other hand\, refers to interventions intended to prevent actions that are significantly non-voluntary.&nbsp\; Since the goal is to implement rather than override the agent's will\, soft paternalism is generally taken to be compatible with liberal respect for persons.&nbsp\; In this paper I explore some difficulties surrounding the concept of soft paternalism.&nbsp\; Drawing on my broader theory of autonomy\, I will argue that even when intervention could better realise the agent's autonomy\, it will almost always fail to afford her due respect.&nbsp\; Soft paternalism turns out to have a quite a bit of bite.&nbsp\; Moreover\, the tension that soft paternalism illuminates between intervention and respect for persons suggests the surprising conclusion that the right to autonomy does not track autonomy competence.</p>
ORGANIZER:
METHOD:PUBLISH
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR