FREEDOM AND PATERNALISM John Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have sharply opposing views on legal paternalism as Mill is categorically against any form of paternalism, while Dworkin believes that there are circumstances in which paternalism is justified . Both agree that paternalism is justified when another person's well-being is violated or put at risk. Mill adopts a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise his freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for him what is in his best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, believes that some cases require the intervention of society as a whole or its individual members. He divides Mill's argument into two distinct typologies, one based on utilitarianism and the other based on the absolute value of free choice. After reading both articles, Dworkin's "Paternalism" and Mill's "On Liberty", I believe that Dworkin is right in explaining that some intervention is necessary in certain circumstances. I came to this conclusion based on the fact that there are circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only his own well-being, but also the well-being of other members of society. Furthermore, the argument that protecting the individual committing the action in question is not a sufficient reason to interfere with the action is ridiculous since one of the primary reasons for the existence of our governments is to protect members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy and an application of the conclusion I have proposed. Before addressing any opposing opinions to my conclusion, I will first explain my reasoning. As Dworkin explains in his essay, there are circumstances in which a person is unable to make a rational and logical decision on his own. The inability to make such decisions has long been a justified reason for interfering in the process, as in cases with young children. When a child is about to run across a busy street to chase his ball, the child's parent, or any other passerby, is rightly justified in... middle of paper... in such a situation decision, the government has the right to intervene and help the person. This is because with this understanding of the situation, the person is unable to make a decision that they would likely agree to after fully understanding the situation. As with the seat belt, a person often does not fully understand that not wearing a seat belt contradicts his or her true desires and that no good or benefit can come from not wearing one. However, when a person makes a rational decision between two things he values, he is the only person who can decide which is best for him. An important condition to remember in this conclusion is that all of this assumes that no other individuals are harmed or put at risk by the actions of these people. Under these conditions I have come to the conclusion that there are some circumstances in which the government is entitled to legal paternalism. These circumstances include times when an individual is unable to make a rational and logical decision for himself, because he does not fully understand the issue or because he is unable to logically assign value to the specific possible consequences of a decision..