Schiavone Giuseppe, De Anna Gabriele, Mameli Matteo, Rebba Vincenzo, Boniolo Giovanni
European Institute of Oncology (IEO), Via Adamello 16, 20139, Milan, Italy,
Med Health Care Philos. 2014 Feb;17(1):103-13. doi: 10.1007/s11019-013-9502-4.
Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler have been arguing for what they named libertarian paternalism (henceforth LP). Their proposal generated extensive debate as to how and whether LP might lead down a full-blown paternalistic slippery slope. LP has the indubitable merit of having hardwired the best of the empirical psychological and sociological evidence into public and private policy making. It is unclear, though, to what extent the implementation of policies so constructed could enhance the capability for the exercise of an autonomous citizenship. Sunstein and Thaler submit it that in most of the cases in which one is confronted with a set of choices, some default option must be picked out. In those cases whoever devises the features of the set of options ought to rank them according to the moral principle of non-maleficence and possibly to that of beneficence. In this paper we argue that LP can be better implemented if there is a preliminary deliberative debate among the stakeholders that elicits their preferences, and makes it possible to rationally defend them.
卡斯·桑斯坦和理查德·泰勒一直在为他们所称的“自由意志家长制”（以下简称LP）进行论证。他们的提议引发了广泛的辩论，即LP如何以及是否可能导致滑向全面的家长制滑坡。LP具有将最佳的实证心理学和社会学证据融入公共和私人政策制定的不容置疑的优点。然而，如此构建的政策的实施在多大程度上能够增强自主公民行使权利的能力尚不清楚。桑斯坦和泰勒认为，在大多数面临一系列选择的情况下，必须挑选出某种默认选项。在这些情况下，无论谁设计选项集的特征，都应该根据不伤害的道德原则，可能还根据行善的道德原则对它们进行排序。在本文中，我们认为，如果利益相关者之间进行初步的审议性辩论，引出他们的偏好，并使其能够合理地捍卫这些偏好，那么LP可以得到更好的实施。
