Downton Abbey and Philosophy (7 page)

We must allow for the possibility that the man may have intended to cross an unsafe bridge—perhaps he liked to live dangerously or didn't want to live at all—but most people would agree that the officer was justified in assuming the man was simply unaware of the danger and pulling him away.

Of course, we question the quality of other people's decision-making processes all the time, usually in less dire circumstances than in Mill's example. Along with the rest of the family, Lord Grantham tried to prevent his youngest daughter, Sybil, from marrying the family's chauffeur, Branson. He clearly doubted her choice, but was this because he doubted it was made voluntarily—perhaps in ignorance of the social consequences of such a marriage—or simply because he disagreed with the choice she made?

This is an important point, because Feinberg's five conditions are procedural, questioning the integrity of the decision-making process rather than the substance of the choice itself. Sometimes, however, a person's choice is judged to be involuntary simply because the external observer doesn't agree with the choice itself, perhaps believing that “no sane person” could have made such a choice. Coercive interference for this reason is sometimes called
hard paternalism
, as opposed to the
soft paternalism
of pulling the man from the unsafe bridge, and is a clear case of value substitution masquerading as a concern with competency to choose.
12

The Dowager Countess Will Love This Section

The more controversial argument for questioning people's choices stems from recent work in behavioral psychology and economics and can be considered another example of less-than-voluntary choice (in addition to the five given by Feinberg). Research in decision making has discovered many cognitive dysfunctions and biases that can steer our choices away from our interests. For example, we have natural tendencies to procrastinate, freely choosing to put off important tasks and waste time doing something else, even though it endangers and frustrates our goals. For example, we may delay signing up for a retirement program, even when we know it's in our best interest, which results in a lower level of wealth in old age. (Perhaps this isn't a concern for Matthew, but it certainly is for the rest of us!)

In their 2008 book
Nudge
, economist Richard Thaler and legal scholar Cass Sunstein argued for what they termed
libertarian paternalism
, by which the government and businesses make small adjustments to options to guide people to make better choices (ostensibly in their own interests).
13
For instance, they suggest that new employees be enrolled automatically in 401(k) retirement plans with an option to withdraw, rather than simply having an option to enroll. Thaler and Sunstein assume that it is in people's true interests to enroll but that laziness or procrastination will delay them. In one of their academic papers on the topic, they wrote the following:

If employers think (correctly, we believe) that most employees would prefer to join the 401(k) plan if they took the time to think about it . . . then by choosing automatic enrollment, they are acting paternalistically by our definition of the term . . . steer[ing] employees' choices in directions that will, in the view of employers, promote employees' welfare.
14

The problem, of course, is in determining what the employees would prefer “if they took the time to think about it,” or in the absence of any cognitive dysfunctions or biases. Libertarian paternalists presume to help people make the choices they “would have made” if they could make perfect decisions, but they still need information about people's true interests to make this determination. Since they can't access that information, their values are necessarily substituted for people's own true interests—such as the presumed interest in retirement savings. Some individual employees, for instance, may actually have any number of higher priorities for their income (such as saving for a down payment on a new home).
15

Had Lord Grantham discovered Sybil and Branson's love affair earlier, he certainly would have tried to “nudge” her in a different direction. We can suppose that he would think her plans to run away to Ireland with Branson were unduly influenced by her emotions, and “had she been in her right mind,” she would have made a choice better suited to further her true interests. An old-school paternalist would have forbade the marriage (as did social mores at the time), but a libertarian paternalist would have simply rearranged her “choice environment” to result in a better decision (for her, of course, for her). Perhaps he could have tried to make Branson less attractive in her eyes or presented her with suitors who would appeal to her progressive mind-set but also be more appropriate socially (if that were possible). The key element in his libertarian paternalism would have been to allow Sybil to make a free choice, but among carefully arranged and tailored options, in order to arrive at the decision that she “would have made anyway”—or, at least, as her father sees it.

Oh, the Hubris!

Although the show is set in a country and an era with rigid class distinctions,
Downton Abbey
portrays most of the nobility and service staff treating one another with care and respect, as befits people who live in such close quarters (both upstairs and downstairs). No one stood in the way of Gwen's hopes to become a secretary; in fact, Sybil went to extraordinary lengths to help her secure interviews and eventually get a job. In doing so, she showed respect for Gwen's goals as well as care in helping her achieve them.

Paternalism, too, is often motivated by good intentions—legitimate concern for others—but it should always be tempered by respect for others' choices and interests. There is a certain degree of hubris involved whenever one group of people thinks it knows what is in other people's true interests better than they do and then forces or “nudges” them into making choices in those presumed interests. If even the British aristocracy could avoid this hubris in dealing with their servants, maybe there's hope for the rest of us!

Notes

1
Gerald Dworkin, “Paternalism,” in
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
, Stanford University,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/paternalism/
.

2
John Stuart Mill,
On Liberty
, ed. David Spitz (1859; repr., New York: W. W. Norton, 1975), 10–11.

3
This conception of autonomy can be traced to a belief in self-ownership. See John Locke,
Two Treatises of Government
(1690), Gutenberg,
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/7370/old/trgov10h.htm
; and Peter Vallentyne, “Self-Ownership,” in “Libertarianism,”
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
, Stanford University,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#1
.

4
Immanuel Kant, “On the Proverb: That May Be True in Theory, But Is of No Practical Use,” in
Perpetual Peace and Other Essays
, trans. T. Humphrey (1793; repr., Indianapolis, IN: Hackett, 1983), 72–73. (The Academy pagination is 8:290–291, standard in any reputable edition of Kant's work.)

5
Dan W. Brock, “Paternalism and Autonomy,”
Ethics
98 (1988): 551.

6
For more on the changing nature of British class distinctions during this era, see David Cannadine,
The Decline and Fall of the British Aristocracy
(New York: Vintage Books, 1999).

7
Of course, O'Brien's concern for Cora is at times overwhelmed by her own self-interest; see chapter 4 in this book.

8
The perceptive reader will no doubt note that Violet is not here recommending any paternalistic action to prevent Gwen from leaving service. However, later in the same (epic) dinner conversation, she does hint at it:

Mary:
What do you say, Mr. Pamuk? Should our housemaid be kept enslaved or forced out into the world?

Mr. Pamuk:
Why are you English so curious about other people's lives? If she wishes to leave, and the law permits it, then let her go.

Violet:
Perhaps the law should not permit it—for the common good.

By definition, the “common good” is not a paternalistic concern, but it can sometimes substitute for people's own interests as the motivation (and political cover) for paternalistic acts.

9
Claire A. Hill, “Anti-Anti-Anti-Paternalism,”
New York University Journal of Law & Liberty
2 (2007): 448.

10
Joel Feinberg,
Harm to Self
(Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1986), 115 (adapted from Diagram 20-5).

11
Mill,
On Liberty
, 89.

12
On hard and soft paternalism, see Joel Feinberg, “Legal Paternalism,” in
Rights, Justice, and the Bounds of Liberty: Essays in Social Philosophy
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1980), 110–129.

13
Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein,
Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness
(New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2008).

14
Cass R. Sunstein and Richard H. Thaler, “Libertarian Paternalism Is Not an Oxymoron,”
University of Chicago Law Review
70 (2001): 1172–1173.

15
For more on the criticism of libertarian paternalism (including the term itself), see Mark D. White, “Behavioral Law and Economics: The Assault on Consent, Will, and Dignity,” in
New Essays on Philosophy, Politics and Economics: Integration and Common Research Projects
, ed. Gerald Gaus, Christi Favor, and Julian Lamont (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2010), 203–223.

Contributors

From the List of Potential Tutors for the Ladies Mary, Edith, and Sybil

Joseph J. Darowski
completed his PhD in American Studies at Michigan State University and is currently a member of the English faculty at Brigham Young University in Idaho. He has previously published research on comic book superheroes and popular television shows and is the editor of
The Ages of Superman: Essays on the Man of Steel in Changing Times
(McFarland, 2012). If he were given free rein at Downton Abbey, it is doubtful that he would ever step foot out of that marvelous library.

Rebecca Housel
, PhD, is visiting faculty at Nazareth College in western New York. Her recent works include
Twilight and Philosophy
,
True Blood and Philosophy
, and
X-Men and Philosophy
. When she isn't seeking out fanged supernatural superheroes, Housel's preferred activity is having lurid affairs with Turkish diplomats . . . or, at least, that
would
be the case if she could somehow manage to manipulate time, space, and reality.

Alex Nuttall
is currently a footman in his lordship's manor and aspires to be the valet soon. He is working on perfect fork and spoon alignment as well as exceptional tailoring. Although the manor makes use of telephones and automobiles, Mr. Nuttall is quite certain they are a passing fad. He has a master's degree in philosophy from Purdue University and contributed to
Watchmen and Philosophy
and
Final Fantasy and Philosophy
. He concealed these things from the other servants—until he met the cute little housemaid who would set him on the right path.

Brett Patterson
earned his PhD in theology and ethics at the University of Virginia and currently teaches at Francis Marion University in South Carolina. He has published essays analyzing
Lost
,
24
, Spider-Man, Batman, and Green Lantern. Although he pulled Stephanie into working on
Iron Man and Philosophy
, this time he must thank her for bringing him into a world populated with such characters as Mr. Bates, Anna, Carson, Mrs. Hughes, the Earl and Countess of Grantham, William and Daisy—may I list all of them?

Stephanie Patterson
studied English, art history, and religion at the University of Virginia and theology at Duke University (North Carolina). She currently works as a pastor for a rural congregation in South Carolina, advocating for the poor and the incarcerated. Stephanie also enjoys working with young people and is especially drawn in by the interests and activities of her small children. She would describe herself as one part Lady Sybil (crusader for justice), one part Mrs. Hughes (keeper of order), and one part Mrs. Patmore (frenetic laborer).

Mark D. White
is chair of the Department of Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at the College of Staten Island, City University of New York, where he teaches courses that combine economics, philosophy, and law. He is the author of
Kantian Ethics and Economics: Autonomy, Dignity, and Character
(Stanford, 2011) and has edited or coedited books for the present series on Batman,
Watchmen
, Iron Man, Green Lantern, and the Avengers. He is currently writing a screenplay for a buddy movie starring Carson, the Avengers' butler Jarvis, and Batman's butler Alfred. (It'll be just like the movie
Red
, but in formal dress.)

If this e-book refers to media such as a CD or DVD, you may download this material at
http://booksupport.wiley.com
. For more information about Wiley products, visit
www.wiley.com