Seat Belt Mandates and Paternalism

A set of Question and Answer flashcards covering the key arguments, definitions, and examples from Jessica Flanigan's critique of seat belt mandates and paternalism.

What is Flanigan's main conclusion about seat belt mandates?

They are unjust and public officials should not enforce them.

What is the basic anti-paternalism principle used in the Case against Seat Belt Mandates (premise 1)?

If a person's autonomous choice is not harmful to others, authorities should not use force to prevent it.

What is the second premise about seat belt riding in the Case against Seat Belt Mandates?

Riding unbelted is an autonomous choice that is not harmful to others.

What conclusion follows from premises (1) and (2) in Flanigan's argument?

Public officials should not paternalistically prevent people from riding unbelted.

Name two broad philosophical perspectives that challenge paternalism as discussed in Flanigan's essay.

Deontological respect for autonomy; Consequentialist reasons to allow experiments in living and to avoid overreach by public officials.

What is 'pay or stay' in the context of seat belt enforcement?

A policy of paying fines for a ticket and then facing imprisonment if fines are not paid.

List the three candidate exceptions to anti-paternalism mentioned as possible justifications for exceptions.

(a) trivial reasons with substantial benefits from paternalism; (b) cases where paternalism protects autonomy by preventing serious damage to autonomy; (c) cases where prohibition would promote people’s life preferences on balance.

Do these proposed exceptions (a–c) justify seat belt mandates according to Flanigan?

No; even if any exception applied, unbelted riding does not meet these conditions, and coercive mandates remain unjustified.

What is 'soft paternalism' and does it justify seat belt mandates?

Paternalism toward non-autonomous adult choices; Flanigan argues it does not justify seat belt mandates because unbelted riding remains autonomous.

Name three 'harm to others' arguments used to oppose unbelted riding.

1) Unbelted bodies could injure or kill restrained passengers as projectiles; 2) bystanders suffer psychic costs from witnessing crashes; 3) higher costs to taxpayers/insurance due to increased medical care.

What is the argument about 'rights' and autonomy in the case against seat belt mandates?

Individuals have rights to bodily integrity and autonomous choice; laws do not eliminate these rights or create new obligations that override them.

What does Flanigan say about enforcement costs and the prioritization of law enforcement?

Seat belt mandates divert police from serious crimes; involve fines, court costs, and potential for civil asset forfeiture and other revenue-driven enforcement.

Why is enforcement seen as 'offensive' or 'insulting' under paternalism?

Paternalism can express disrespect and condescension toward autonomous citizens, not just impose penalties.

What is the 'expressive harm' of paternalism, as discussed by Shiffrin and Quong?

Paternalism can convey an offensive judgment that citizens cannot competently decide for themselves.

What is the 'distributive justice' concern with seat belt mandates?

Mandates disproportionately affect marginalized groups and can amplify racial and economic disparities in enforcement.

What does the 'hypocrisy' concern say about seat belt mandates?

Public officials may tolerate or enact risky practices in other domains while condemning mandates, undermining moral equality.

What is the autonomy-based defense of paternalism (basic vs non-basic liberties), and its limitation here?

Paternalistic limits on non-basic liberties can promote autonomous participation, but unbelted riding does not obviously damage non-basic autonomy enough to justify mandates.

What policy alternatives does Flanigan propose instead of strict mandates?

Voluntary nudges and opt-in enforcement (e.g., insurance incentives); opt-out designs (bumper stickers or IDs indicating objection); and maintaining mandates only where consent is feasible.

What is the New Hampshire example and what does it illustrate?

New Hampshire does not enforce adult seat belt mandates, illustrating rights-based concerns and suggesting other safety measures can achieve gains without coercive enforcement.

What is the final stance on whether coercive paternalism is ever justified?

Flanigan argues it is rarely justified; seat belt mandates are not easily justified by paternalistic aims, and a skeptical view of coercive paternalism is warranted.