The debate on whether tobacco companies should be required to sell their products in plain packaging is one that has been discussed worldwide since Australia introduced the legislation in December 2010. Mill’s “On Liberty” discusses the “nature and limits of the power that can legitimately be exercised by society over the individual.” The plain packaging has largely been applauded as a means of reducing the demand for cigarettes but when are we justified in interfering with the liberty of a competent, mature member of our own society?
Firstly, through the harm principle which, according to Mill governments are entitled to restrict an adults liberty only when it is necessary to do so in order to prevent harm to someone else. However, it cannot be used to prevent
…show more content…
Mill reasons that state power is liable to abuse and therefore, may limit the liberty of citizens to pursue and promote their own interests. However, Mill does not view warning a person of the possible adverse consequences of their actions as paternalistic. “These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil in case he do otherwise.” Through Mill’s writings on paternalism it is obvious that the warnings that New Zealand currently places on tobacco does not undermine a person’s liberty but, in removing all branding, the state interferes with the liberty its people by removing an individual’s autonomy. Plato, among other philosophers, argue that autonomy is essential for individual happiness “The heaviest penalty for declining to rule is to be ruled by someone inferior to yourself.” (Plato ‘The Republic’) In this way it is shown that by adopting paternalist principles to use plain packaging on tobacco may in fact do more harm than good as the removal of one’s autonomy is a removal of an aspect of their