Paternalism with hindsight: do protégés react consequentialistically to paternalism?

Abstract

We investigate experimentally whether the proteges’ reaction to paternalism depends on the consequences of the paternalistic action to their well-being. Thus, our research is concerned with the perception of paternalism by those who are directly affected by it, rather than with the justifiability of paternalism from an ethical perspective. We find that the proteges punish a paternalist restricting their freedom of choice. Yet, this negative reaction is not based on principled grounds because, with the wisdom of hindsight, the proteges punish the paternalist only if the restriction makes them worse off. Conversely, if the restriction makes them better off, the proteges on average do not punish and, sometimes, they even reward the paternalist. This suggests that the proteges take predominantly a consequentialist stand on paternalism. In addition, a regression analysis reveals that our main finding is not altered when we control for the intentions (malevolent vs. benevolent) that the proteges attribute to the paternalist.