Seat Belt Mandates and Paternalism

Flanigan, Jessica

doi:10.1163/17455243-46810050

Cited by 21 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many agree that paternalistically justified policies and actions express a problematic attitude of disrespect toward the people interfered with (see e.g. Anderson, 1999: 301–302; Begon, 2016: 364; Flanigan, 2016; Shiffrin, 2000: 207). For the same reasons, avoiding paternalism is often seen, at least, as an important desideratum.…”

Section: Paternalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We consider three of these below. Two of them are derived from Jessica Flanigan’s recent article on the case for seat belt mandates (Flanigan, 2016). The third challenges the symmetry we claim between the duty to avoid harshness and the duty to avoid insouciance (as both being related to sufficiency and as some that we have strong reasons to discharge).…”

Section: Objections To the Importance Of Avoiding Insouciancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our argument for helmet mandates and similar security mandates, we suggested that people plausibly attach limited value to the liberty to drive without seat belts and helmets. Flanigan challenges this claim: some attach considerable value to these freedoms (Flanigan, 2016: 12). In a review of Brian Barry’s Justice as Impartiality (Barry, 1995), Andrew Reeve made a similar rejoinder to Barry’s case for helmet mandates.…”

Section: Objections To the Importance Of Avoiding Insouciancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…We believe that such a rendering of the argument constitutes a plausible version of the argument. Flanigan, however, believes that it implies problematic perfectionist claims (Flanigan, 2016: 13). In response, at least some form of perfectionism might in fact not be objectionable from a liberal point of view—and seat belt and helmet mandates and other similar policies may be part of such an acceptable program of perfectionism.…”

Section: Objections To the Importance Of Avoiding Insouciancementioning

confidence: 99%

“…But this does not ensure sufficiency. It only ensures that sufficient means for providing assistance are available (means provided by the imprudent individuals themselves).3 Alternatively, they have mistakenly (as we shall show below) argued that relevant paternalistic considerations are unable to justify a number of sufficiency-preserving measures (Flanigan, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Is Anti-Paternalism Enough?

Pedersen

Midtgaard

2017

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The article addresses the question of how sufficiency for the imprudent may be ensured. Imprudent conduct includes both spectacular acts such as jumping from heights into water, and everyday acts and omissions such as neglecting to fasten one’s seat-belt. We argue that to avoid thoroughly bad or insufficient situations, one must pay attention to an important and often neglected concern of avoiding insouciance. The latter tells us not to stand idly by when people are about to act in ways that may irrevocably land them in insufficient situations. The policies and actions needed to avoid insouciance are most plausibly justified on paternalistic grounds; in fact, they cannot be justified nonpaternalistically. Although controversial, we argue that paternalistic interventions are often justifiable in the service of preserving sufficiency.

show abstract

Section: Paternalismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Objections To the Importance Of Avoiding Insouciancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Objections To the Importance Of Avoiding Insouciancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Objections To the Importance Of Avoiding Insouciancementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Is Anti-Paternalism Enough?

Pedersen

Midtgaard

2017

Political Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Liberty, Paternalism, and Road Safety

Hansson

2022

The Vision Zero Handbook

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traffic safety measures such as seat belts, helmets, and speed limits have often been opposed by people claiming that these measures infringe on their liberty. Safety measures are often described as paternalistic, i.e., as protecting people against their own will. This chapter provides a historical account of such criticism of safety measures, beginning with nineteenth-century opposition to sanitation measures, which were claimed to threaten the freedom to drink dirty water. The historical analysis has a surprising conclusion: Opposition to safety measures does not seem to have much to do with paternalism. Some measures that would typically be described as paternalistic, such as seat belts in commercial aviation and hard hats on construction sites, have met with no significant opposition. In contrast, some of the most vehemently opposed measures, such as speed limits and the prohibition of drunk driving, cannot with any vestige of credibility be described as paternalistic. This is followed by an analysis showing that due to our tendency to follow examples set by others (herd effects), purely self-affecting behavior is much less common than what has usually been assumed. Most of the opposition to safety measures in road traffic seem to result from some individuals’ desires to engage in activities that endanger other people’s lives. The social need to restrain the satisfaction of such desires is obvious.

show abstract

Liberty, Paternalism, and Road Safety

Hansson

2022

The Vision Zero Handbook

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Seat Belt Mandates and Paternalism

Cited by 21 publications

References 2 publications

Is Anti-Paternalism Enough?

Is Anti-Paternalism Enough?

Liberty, Paternalism, and Road Safety

Liberty, Paternalism, and Road Safety

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About