Autonomy:  “the capacity to be one's own person, to live one's life according to reasons and motives that are taken as one's own and not the product of manipulative or distorting external forces.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Welfare Principle: “Autonomy should be restricted if it is done so with the expectation of a substantial benefit to others.” Don Berkich

Strong Paternalism: “An individual's autonomy should be restricted if, by doing so, we act to benefit the individual.” Don Berkich

For the purposes of this interrogation, I am assuming the restricting party is the government. Let the questions begin!

  • What is a benefit?
  • What is a significant benefit?
  • Are there certain types of benefits that are sufficiently compelling as to justify the imposition of external forces to restrict autonomy? And other types of benefits that are not so compelling?
  • What distinguishes these types of benefits and why are they important?
  • Is there a benefit threshold – a benefit level or quantity - at which point autonomy should be restricted?
  • Why draw the line there? That is, what makes some level of a benefit so compelling as to justify the imposition of external forces to restrict autonomy? And other benefits not so compelling?
  • How much certainty of benefit is required before self-determination is restricted?
  • Assuming restricted autonomy is a cost, how does one determine the value of that cost when doing a cost/benefit analysis?
  • Do different domains of autonomy have different values? (And hence restricted autonomy in some domains would represent a higher cost in one’s cost/benefit analysis).

The effects of self-determined actions and non-actions come with varying degrees of certainty, immediacy, importance, magnitude, and vividness, as do the effects of restricting self-determined actions and non-actions.  

  • How does one evaluate the trade-offs among these effects?
  • How does one determine even greater benefits are to be gained through restricting autonomy than not?

Even if this restriction or that restriction seems justified, the cumulative burden of restrictions may prevent benefit or cause harm. The likely benefit of specific restrictions has to be weighed against the cost of imposing too many restrictions.

When the cost of any single restriction is negligible and the benefit clear, how do we know when to leave well enough alone anyway?