Article Text

PDF
Author meets critics: response
Paternalism, French fries and the weak-willed Witness
  1. Nir Eyal
  1. Correspondence to Dr Nir Eyal, Harvard University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, USA; nir_eyal{at}hms.harvard.edu

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Most books on ethics are boring. Against Autonomy 1 is fun to read because its helpful and profound points are made without a fuss. Author Sarah Conly is right that “when individuals engage in behavior that undercuts their own chances of happiness, state interference may be justified”.

In what follows I argue that Conly misinterprets that thesis in three ways. First, she says that her paternalism seeks to “help people get where they want to go... live the lives they truly want to live”. That's a different idea from the one I quoted earlier. Why? Because people do not always (truly) want to live in the way that (in fact) would give them the highest chance of happiness. Conly is surely right that when we “habitually choose the large fries”, that's not always because large fries is what we want truly. Such choice can also reflect ignorance and miscalculation on our parts—when we simply “choose ineffective means to our ends”. But Conly fails to recognise another potential source. Sometimes self-harming choice reflects what we truly want at the time. Many young people do not care much about health problems in their older years. They habitually choose large fries not because they …

View Full Text

Request permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Author meets critics
    Sarah Conly
  • Author meets critics
    Sarah Conly
  • Author meets critics
    Alan Wertheimer
  • The concise argument
    Mark Sheehan
  • Author meets critics
    Jonathan Pugh
  • Author meets critics
    Gerald Dworkin