Harm and Helmets: How Harmful Social Costs Fail to Justify Paternalistic Health and Safety Regulations

• Author: Devin J. Christensen
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211070351
• Published date: 01 December 2022
• Date: 01 December 2022

Article

PoliticalResearchQuarterly

2022,Vol.75(4)1271–1283

©TheAuthor(s)2021

Articlereuseguidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI:10.1177/10659129211070351

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

HarmandHelmets:HowHarmfulSocial

CostsFailtoJustifyPaternalisticHealth

andSafetyRegulations

DevinJ.Christensen

Abstract

Mill’sharmprincipleandthefinancialexternalitiesofriskybehaviorareroutinelyinvokedtojustifyhealthandsafety

regulation.However,thisapproachfarespoorlywhensubjectedtotheoreticalscrutiny.First,itisfalse:individuals

engaginginriskybehaviordonotharmothers.Second,evenifriskybehaviorwereharmfultoothers,theargumentfrom

harmfulexternalitiesdoesnotimplysafety-enhancingpolicyinterventions,atleastnotwithoutadditionalappealsto

paternalism.Third,focusingontheeconomicimpactsofaccidentsinvitesperversevictim-blamingattitudestoward

accidentvictimsthatunderminedemocraticvaluesandjustice.Toimproveourmoralunderstandingofhealthandsafety

regulation,Isketchatheoryofpublicpolicyjustificationgroundedinthecontroversieswhichattractourattentionto

paternalisticpolicesinthefirstplace.Onthisaccount,justificatoryargumentsareplausibleiftheyidentifygoodsthat

individualsgenuinelyaffirmontheirownterms,aresensitivetocausalresponsibilityandimbalancesbetweenrestraint

andprotection,andcomparativelyengagewithpossiblepolicyalternatives.Illustratingtheshortcomingsofonedominant

approachtopublicpolicyjustificationandreorientingustowardthecontroversiesthatpolicyjustificationsneedto

confrontreflecttwowaysthatpoliticaltheorycanhelpenhancejusticeinpublicpolicydesignandarticulation.

Keywords

justification,publicpolicy,socialcosts,harm,paternalism,motorcyclehelmet

Introduction

Healthandsafetyregulationsareathornyissueforliberals

becausetheypitthemoralgoalsofprotectinglifeand

protectingfreedomagainstoneanother.Ontheonehand,

regulatoryinterventionssavethousandsoflivesevery

year(Cooketal.2009;Mayrose2008;Wobrocketal.

2003),andrepealingthemwouldleadthousandsofin-

dividualswhootherwisewouldhavelivedtodie(Carter

etal.2017;Preusser,HedlundandUlmer2000).Thisis

causeforalarmonanydefensiblemoralplatform.Onthe

otherhand,safetyregulationsarerightlycriticizedfor

beingpaternalisticbecausetheyrestrictindividuals’

freedominthenameofdeliveringwhatthestateestimates

isinthoseindividuals’bestinterests.Thepuzzlefor

liberalswhosupportregulatoryintervention,then,isto

somehowreconcileliberalcommitmentswithbasicmoral

intuitionsconcerningthevalueofhumanlife.

Tonavigatethispuzzle,policymakersandcitizen

commentatorsroutinelyinvokeMill’sharmprinciple

(BieglerandJohnson2013;MelloandStuddert2014;

Claassen2016;Diekema2004;Eastridgeetal.2006;

GostinandGostin2009;Ferguson2011).Itisgenerally

acceptedthatthestatemayinterveneinordertoprotectus

fromotherpeople,whichcreatesthepossibilityfornon-

paternalisticjustificationsforhealthandsafetyregulations

thatpreventindividualsengaginginriskybehaviorfrom

harmingthird-partyothers(Huster2015;Anomaly2009;

LeGrandandNew2015).Inthecaseofhealthandsafety

regulations,defendersofinterventionpointtoexternal

financialcostsasrelevantharmsthestateshouldintervene

toprevent,therebyvindicatingregulatoryintervention

withoutdirectlyconfrontingpaternalism(Bieglerand

Johnson2015;MelloandStuddert2014;Winokur

2007;Claassen2016;PurdyandSeigel2012;Le

UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,ChapelHill,NC,USA

CorrespondingAuthor:

DevinJ.Christensen,UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapelHill,361

HamiltonHallCB3265,ChapelHill,NC,USA.

Email:djc2020@live.unc.edu