Course:Law3020/2014WT1/Group J/Liberty-Paternalism

Outlining the theory – Liberty

On Liberty, published in 1869 John Stuart Mill's largest contribution to the Liberty theory which encapsulates many ideas contained in his social utilitarian philosophy. In his philosophy he delves into how the application of the law, and its connections to morality, can affect an individual's liberty. This approach is concerned with answering the questions:

How should the law govern an individual's behavior?

What role does morality play in that governance?

What constitutes moral wrong?

What limits can be put on an individual's liberty?

Dimock explains the theory succinctly in stating, “[The] object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used by physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. The principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral is not a sufficient warrant” (Dimock at page 306). Mill goes on to say that if an act is harmful to others, that it would create a prima facie case for punishing them. This would be an imposition on their personal choices and liberty as a result of their immoral behavior. Individuals must appreciate that they are living in a society. No person that can be completely isolated and therefore must be conscious of his or her behavior in respect to others. Individuals should be bound to conduct themselves in a certain way towards each other. One should not injure the interests of another, and furthermore an individual should bear his or her share of labours and sacrifices made in efforts to defend the society.

John Stuart Mill then explains that it is justifiable, when there is definite damage or risk of definite damage, either to an individual or to the public, that such a case should be taken out of the realm of liberty and handled in the morality of society or the law. He contends that, though tyranny of the majority garners important consideration (tyranny of the prevailing opinion), checks and balances should exist to ensure that it follows the stated principle (WHAT STATED PRINCIPLE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT IS BEING REFERENCED HERE). The elected authority assists with this function by creating a unity of interests between the government and those being governed.

Finally, the theory of liberty seeks to determine when it is justifiable for the law to impose on, or impede, one’s personal choices. Though it may be clear that liberty should be a foundational principle at the heart of society, it must be recognize there is bound to be conflict of interests within society. John Stuart Mill looks at four possible measures of justification to impose limits on one's liberty.

These measures are:

The Harm Principle

The Offense Principle

Legal Moralism

Paternalism

We will analyze each of these four measure in the analysis below.

John Stuart Mill

Justifications for restricting liberty

Harm principle

”A society is justified in restricting liberty of any of its members when this is necessary to prevent (serious) harm to others” (Dimock at page 303). The harm principle is considered to be the more reasonable justification on one’s liberty. Certainly in the eyes of John Stuart Mill, it is seen as the sole justification for infringement.

Offence principle

“Society may interfere with the liberty of its members to prevent them from causing offence to others” (Dimock at page 303). Similar to John Stuart Mill’s application of the harm principle, but distinct in that it considers an offence to more immoral in nature to society but not harmful to those engaged in the act.

Legal moralism

“Society may interfere with the liberty of its members to prevent its member from acting in ways that conflict with or undermine the moral values of some favoured groups, usually the “majority” or “society”” (Dimock at page 303). Here the issue is not of harm, but of offended moral values of the majority, and can include such examples as abortion and euthanasia. Lord Patrick Delvin defends such a view.

Paternalism

“A society is justified in restricting the liberty of any of its members when this is necessary to prevent the person whose liberty is being restricted from harming him or herself” (Dimock at page 303). This would be in direct conflict with the harm principle championed by John Stuart Mill, as it suggests allowing society to interfere with one’s liberty for their perceived benefit. Gerald Dworkin heavily contributes to this theory. He suggests that such prohibitions on suicides and dangerous drugs, should be accepted restriction to one’s liberty as it is for their own good.

Dworkin critiques John Stuart Mill’s rejections of paternalism, as John Stuart Mill sees as incompatible with free personal choice. Dworkin states “that there is a significant range of cases in which paternalism interference with the liberty of the individuals for their own good can be justified. For, if paternalism is generally problematic because it interferes with the value of free choice, nevertheless we may be justified in restricting the freedom of individual to make decision the consequences of which are “far-reaching, potentially dangerous and irreversible””(Dimock at page 321). This can be seen as a pseudo social insurance policy to protect society and individuals, as it paternalist policy would ensure that individuals to not make potentially harmful decisions. It follows that potentially the state can infer consent to such interference as it is seen as protection.

• Note: The above information is based off of content from pages 302-322 of Dimock's Classic Readings and Canadian Cases in the Philosophy of Law (see "Bibliography" for more details)

Analysis of Liberty and Paternalism to PHS

In this section, e an analysis of how the court’s decision in PHS relates to liberty and paternalism will be discussed.

Liberty

The factors of liberty are at the heat of this case. In fact this case is based on a challenge to Section 7 of the Charter, which protects the rights to life, liberty and security of the person. Here personal choice and safety is at the forefront of the majority’s decision. They grapple with a difficult moral dilemma in providing a safe space for drug users, to inject themselves with both a morally and legally conflicting substance. The choice here was ultimately to side with the individual drug using public, to allow them a safe space with medical supervision to partake in such activates. This aligns well with the principles stated under liberty. It favours the free choice of an individual, and though there is some control measures put in place, one could easily argue that they are justified under the harm principle. In the headnote the court states “Section 4(1) directly engages the liberty interests of the health professionals who provide the supervised services at Insite because of the availability of a penalty of imprisonment in ss. 4(3) to 4(6) of the CDSA. It also directly engages the rights to life, liberty and security of the person of the clients of Insite. In order to make use of the lifesaving and health protecting services offered at Insite, clients must be allowed to be in possession of drugs on the premises. Prohibiting possession at large engages drug users’ liberty interests; prohibiting possession at Insite engages their rights to life and to security of the person” (PHS, at headnote). It is clear that though prohibited substances will be used on premise that it is vital for the safety and security of the users that the health providing services exist. Further the court explains that it is important to protect the clients of Insite, as s.4(1) of the CDSA, which prohibits the possession of illegal substances directly impacts the client’s Charter protected rights (at para 97). Finally, the court states that this is not a measure of harm reduction or promoting an abstinence-based program, it is to allow Canadians to be protected under the Charter (at para 105, 110, 127). This decision allows Canadians that are struggling with drug abuse to seek help and security in the activity, with their health being the number one priority, which intern will prevent the possibility of extreme harm on these individuals as they will not have to partake in drug activity in a dangerous manner.

Paternalism

It can be argued that the majority’s decision in protecting the drug user’s health, while respecting their access to health care in activity that is condemned in society, was done for their own good. It is however, more likely that the argument advanced by the government embodied the paternalist views, in condemning the Insite establishment was for the betterment of society, and a justified interference as it was protecting further harm to those individuals and society. The government seeks to eradicate drug use, not condone it through allowing a premise that aids in drug consumption, a premise that they argue cannot even be proven to be effective (in the sense of personal choice to attend the facility) as the mental capacities of the clients is in question (at para 99, 100-101). They view drug addiction as a disease (at para 100-101).

Conclusion

It is clear the theories expressed above both played a significant role in the PHS case, and that it is more likely that the majority of the court followed a view more grounded in liberty rather than paternalism.