PHIL 150 1st Edition Lecture 21Outline of Last Lecture I. Quantitative UtilitarianismII. Traditionalist ConsequentialismIII. Criticisms of the Consequentialist LibertarianismOutline of Current Lecture I. PaternalismII. Legal MoralismCurrent LecturePaternalism and Legal MoralismPaternalism- "Paternalism" comes from the Latin pater, meaning to act like a father, or to treat another person like a child- To act for the good of another person without that person's consent, as parents do for children- It is controversial because its end is benevolent, and its means coercive- Paternalists advance people's interests (such as life, health, or safety) at the expense of their liberty- It can be based on relatively good knowledge, as in the case of paternalism over young children or incompetent adults- Paternalism protects people from themselves, as if their safety were more important than their liberty- By contrast, the harm principle, famously articulated by Mill, holds that limiting liberty can only be justified to prevent harm to other people, not to prevent self-harm-Coercion can only be justified to prevent harm to unconsenting others, not to prevent harm to which the actors competently consent- Legal paternalism and the harm principle come into conflict-Competent self-harm and risk of self-harm-Harm to consenting others-Harmless actsThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.- The harm principle demands that we tolerate all three types of act, but paternalists often wish to regulate them- Under the harm principle, victimless crimes must be decriminalized, and virtually all paternalism over competent adults ended- It permits paternalism over the incompetent, such as young children, the retarded, and perhaps those whose ability to make decisions is compromised by ignorance, deception, duress, or clouded faculties- Informed proponents of the principle are far from agreement on-Which acts harm only the actor-Which consents are valid-Which acts are harmless-If "harm" is defined broadly, or "valid consent" narrowly, then even the harm principle will fail to provide a meaningful zone of privacy or barrier to paternalismLegal Moralism- Legal moralism is the view that the law can legitimately be used to prohibit behaviors that conflict with society's collective moral judgments even when those behaviors do notresult in physical or psychological harm to others- A person's freedom can legitimately be restricted simply because it conflicts with society's collective morality; thus, legal moralism implies that it is permissible for the state to use its coercive power to enforce society's collective morality- The most famous legal moralist is Patrick Devlin, who argues that a shared morality is essential to the existence of a society-Human beings cannot lead a meaningful existence outside of society-The law can be used to preserve the shared morality as a means of preserving society itself- Devlin attempts to conclude from the necessity of a shared social morality that it is permissible for the state to legislate sexual morality (in particular, to legislate against same-sex sexual relations), but Hart argues it is implausible to think that "deviation fromaccepted sexual morality, even by adults in private, is something which, like treason, threatens the existence of society"- While enforcement of certain social norms protecting life, safety, and property are likely essential to the existence of a society, a society can survive a diversity of behavior in many other areas of moral concern-as is evidenced by the controversies in the U.S. surrounding abortion and