Hard Paternalism and Confucian Familism  

作　　者：Andrew Tsz Wan Hung 

机构地区：[1]Division of Social Sciences,Humanities and Design,College of Professional and Continuing Education,The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,9 Hoi Ting Road,Yau Ma Tei,Kowloon,Hong Kong,China

出　　处：《Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences》2024年第3期455-478,共24页复旦人文社会科学论丛（英文版）

基　　金：Funding My work on this article is partially supported by a grant[SSHD 2023-299(D)]from the College of Professional and Continuing Education,an afiliate of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.

摘　　要：In this paper,I criticize Joel Feinberg's argument of soft paternalism,which stands against hard paternalism,as being untenable.As assessing one's voluntariness is very difficult and controversial,paternalistic measures would be preferable to be implemented by hard paternalism rather than soft paternalism.I then examine four usual criticisms of hard paternalism from the perspective of utilitarianism and the principle of autonomy.I argue that these criticisms are unsound and unfounded,and I defend hard paternalism from the perspective of Confucian familism.I argue that as one's life and identity are inseparable from one's family,“self-regarding”actions,traditionally understood,do not only affect the self,but also one's family members.Thus,paternalistic measures to protect individuals from self-harming are also aimed to protect their family members which are indeed compatible with Mill's harm principle.

关 键 词：PATERNALISM Feinberg John S.Mill-Confucian familism Autonomy:Voluntariness 

分 类 号：B222[哲学宗教—中国哲学]