LIBERTY AND PATERNALISMJohn Stuart Mill and Gerald Dworkin have sharply opposing views on legal paternalism in that Mill is categorically against any form of paternalism, while Dworkin believes that it exists circumstances in which paternalism is justified. Both agree that paternalism is justified when the well-being of others is violated or endangered. Mill adopts a utilitarian argument, explaining that allowing an individual to exercise their freedom of free choice is more beneficial to society than deciding for them what is in their best interests. Dworkin, on the other hand, believes that some cases require intervention either by society as a whole or by its individual members. He breaks down Mill's argument into two distinct types, one based on utilitarianism and the other based on the absolute value of free choice. After reading both articles, Dworkin's "Paternalism" and Mill's "On Liberty", I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some intervention is necessary in certain circumstances. I came to this conclusion based on the fact that there are circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision taking into account not only his own well-being, but also that of other members of society . Furthermore, the argument that protecting the individual committing the action in question is not a sufficient reason to interfere with the action is ridiculous since one of the primary reasons for the existence of our governments is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of the conclusion I propose. Before addressing any opposing views to my conclusion, I will first explain my reasoning. As Dworkin explains in his essay, there are circumstances in which a person is incapable of making a rational, logical decision for themselves. The inability to make such decisions has long been a justified reason for interfering in the process, such as in the case of young children. When a young child is about to cross a busy street to chase his ball, the child's parent, or any other spectator, is legitimately justified in the middle of a paper ......f such a decision , the government has the right to intervene and help the person. Indeed, with this understanding of the situation, the person is not capable of making a decision to which he would probably consent after having fully understood the situation. As with the seat belt, a person often does not fully understand that not wearing a seat belt contradicts his or her true desires and that no possible good or benefit can come from not wearing one. However, when a person makes a rational decision between two things that are important to them, only they can decide which is best for them. An important condition to remember in this conclusion is that all of this assumes that no other person is harmed or endangered by the actions of these people. Under these circumstances, I come to the conclusion that there are certain circumstances in which the government is entitled to legal paternalism. These circumstances include times when an individual is unable to make a rational, logical decision for themselves, either because they do not fully understand the problem or because they are unable to logically assign a value to specific consequences possibilities of a decision..