Paternalists are often cast as a joyless and puritanical bunch, closing off avenues of pleasure for ordinary people because it is in their own good. But though puritanism does, I think, characterise a lot of paternalists today, it is not a necessary feature of paternalism. Paternalism properly construed is the view that we may interfere with people against their will for the sake of their own well-being, but it is often interpreted as the view that we may interfere with people against their will for the sake of their health. There is more to life than health, but some paternalists often neglect this.
I personally am in favour of paternalism. I think the state may and should sometimes intervene in people’s lives for their own good. I think seatbelt laws are wise, that tobacco should be taxed, and that people should at the very least strongly discouraged from taking heroin. But puritanism isn’t at all plausible and I think it leads people to neglect some very important benefits.
Take the example of alcohol. In their discussion of alcohol taxation, GiveWell discuss the many problems with alcohol:
“Heavy drinking is associated with many health and social problems, including liver disease, unsafe sex, domestic violence, homicide, and reckless driving. In 2012, 28,000 Americans died from alcohol-caused diseases. Another 10,000 lost their lives in alcohol-involved motor vehicle crashes, accounting for 31% of all motor vehicle deaths… Worldwide in 2010, the death toll from alcohol-caused disease was 155,000…”
These are indeed serious problems associated with alcohol. But alcohol has loads of benefits too. My friends and colleagues are psychologically normal non-alcoholics and almost all of them drink and enjoy it. Alcohol greases the wheels of social interaction, it leads to great parties, it creates friendships.
In the UK, 30 million people drink every week. If we assume that this creates an extra two hours of fun for these people, that is 600 million hours of fun per week, 68,500 years of fun per week or 3.6m years of fun per year. These are very large benefits, but I have never seen a paternalist consider them when assessing whether increased taxation or prohibition is justified. Paternalists should carry out a proper wellbeing analysis when deciding on their policies.