Skip to Main Content
Article navigation

This article examines how Derek Parfit’s moral philosophy can help to develop new insights to account for the justification of paternalistic policies in the context of normative behavioral economics. I discuss two themes that appear in Parfit’s work which I argue could provide insights to the debate over soft forms of paternalism: the reductionist account of personal identity and the notion of rational consent. I argue that these two theses are directly relevant to tackle several issues that are central in the NBE defense of paternalistic policies. In particular, they help to reflect over the significance of distinctions between ends paternalism and means paternalism and indicate that the tacitly assumed existence of a trade-off between well-being and autonomy is either meaningless or illusory.

Licensed re-use rights only
You do not currently have access to this content.
Don't already have an account? Register

Purchased this content as a guest? Enter your email address to restore access.

Please enter valid email address.
Email address must be 94 characters or fewer.
Pay-Per-View Access
$39.00
Rental

or Create an Account

Close Modal
Close Modal