Challenging morality and natural rights Finally, Mill's utilitarian approach dismisses paternalism on two crucial grounds: that of morality and natural rights. To Mill, it seems that coercive paternalism attempts to promote ideals and absolutes; to prevent all negative outcomes, and to eliminate bad choices. It claims that 'we are intractably irrational' and that 'we have a natural, even biological, tendency towards social conformity' (Conly, 2013, pp.7-9); that we are not seeking changes and improvements, and rather fall into a state of discomfort and a lack of motivations. Therefore, as a natural right, we need an outside help that would guide citizens and limit their wrong choices. This view, however, clashes with Mill's liberalism that …show more content…
Morality creates a precedence for a governmental control, based on customs and learned behaviour (Ten, 2008). While paternalism itself is predominantly built on assumed moral codes, liberty depends on sovereign actions of all people, outside of social limitations and regulations (Gaus, 2008). For Mill, every individual is the best judge of his or her own behaviour. Morality, on the other hand, encourages conformity, which, in turn, creates mediocrity. Thus, no progress can occur, and people are dependent and less prone to learning or exchanging of ideas. According to On Liberty, uniformity means decline, and individuals are not encouraged to make choices, to explore their horizons, or to enrich their society (Mill, [1859] 2009). When a society evolves naturally rather than by copying prescribed behaviour, it utilises its potential, encourages rationality and knowledge, and is able to avoid moral judgements, such as the creation of laws based on moral principles. Moral paternalistic norms disadvantage alternative choices and unconventionality, such as consensual polygamy or homosexuality, limiting autonomy and thus the overall societal