Dozenten:
One of the currently most influential strategies to justify paternalistic measures is based on the findings of behavioural and cognitive sciences. It claims to be compatible with a generally liberal view and argues that people rarely behave rationally — when their behaviour is compared to the standard by classical rational choice theory — , but, to a large extent, quasi-rationally: Their choices and even their preferences depend on effects of framing, anchoring, status quo bias etc. Consequently, in many areas, the choices and preferences are inevitably affected by how the state sets up decision situations for its citizens (e.g. whether the default rule is to stay within an insurance scheme or be left out of it), and, it is argued, these inevitable regulations should be paternalistic (Sunstein / Thaler). Furthermore, the systematic deviation of people's decisions from the standard of classical rational choice theory, seems to invite additional paternalistic measures both to optimise rationality and to avoid non-rational choices that are harmful (von Aacken), or to "correct" "adaptive" preferences which have been formed as a result of repressive socialization.
The aim of the seminar is to put this approach under critical scrutiny. Even if the decision patterns of persons are, generally, quasi-rational rather than rational in the classical sense, it is not clear, what normative consequences are to be drawn from this result. After presenting central exponents of the behavioural law and economics approach, both critical voices from the legal camp (Englerth) and from the philosophical camp will be examined; especially, it will be asked, how far bounded rationality raises difficulties for classical accounts of autonomy. Eventually, it will be attempted to develop a new, more differentiated model of justifying paternalistic measures, which incorporates the insights of behavioural law and economics.
Für Teilnehmer/innen der Veranstaltung stehen im kennwortgeschützten Bereich Materialien zur Verfügung.
| Termin | Dozent | Thema |
| 25.10.07 |
Prof. Dr. Jean Claude Wolf Professor für Ethik und politische Philosophie, Universität Freiburg/Schweiz |
Paternalismus vor und nach Mill |
| 22.11.07 |
Dr. Barbara Sutter Universität Basel |
Auf dem Weg in die Bürgergesellschaft: Wider den Staatlichen Paternalismus !/? |
| 06.12.07 |
Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Seelmann Ordinarius für Strafrecht und Rechtsphilosophie, Universität Basel/Schweiz |
Gattungswürde und Paternalismus |
| 20.12.07 |
Dr. med. Pirous Fateh-Moghadam Universität Trento |
Gesunde Entscheidungen fördern - Paternalismus in der Gesundheitspolitik? |
| 17.01.08 |
Prof. Dr. Ulfrid Neumann Professor für Strafrecht, Strafprozessrecht, Rechtsphilosophie und Rechtssoziologie, Universität Frankfurt am Main |
Paternalismus im Strafrecht - am Beispiel des Verbots der Tötung auf Verlangen (§216 StGB) |
| 31.01.08 |
Prof. Dr. Konrad Hilpert Lehrstuhl für Moraltheologie, LMU München |
Solidarität mit den Schwachen und am Rand Stehenden. Kirchliches Engagement zwischen Anwaltschaft und Paternalismus |
Samstag, 16. Juni 2007, MKE
| 09:45 – 10:00 | Einführung durch Herrn Prof. Dr. Wilhelm Vossenkuhl |
| Vormittag | |
| Moderation: | Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Claus Roxin |
| 10:00 – 11:00 |
Dr. Bijan Fateh-Moghadam “Grenzen des weichen Paternalismus — Skizze eines Forschungsprojekts” |
| 11:15 – 12:15 |
Dr. Peter König “Paternalismus im Sport — Aspekte der Dopingbekämpfung mit strafrechtichen Mitteln” |
| 12:30 – 13:30 |
Prof. Dr. Armin Nassehi “Asymmetrien als Problem und als Lösung” |
| 13:30 – 15:00 |
Mittagspause — Mittagsbuffet im MKE Speisesyndikat-catering creationen |
| Nachmittag | |
| Moderation: | Vizepräsident Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Winfried Hassemer |
| 15:00 – 16:00 |
Prof. Dr. Günter Ellscheid “Normtheoretische Bemerkungen zum Begriff des Paternalismus” |
| 16:00 – 16:30 | Kaffeepause im MKE |
| 16:30 – 17:30 |
Prof. Dr. Reinhard Merkel “Slippery-Slope- und Dammbruch-Argumente in der Medizinethik und im Medizirecht” |
| 17:45 – 18:45 |
Prof. Dr. med. Uwe Heemann “Risiko der Lebendorganspende und Fürsorge des Arztes — Wann darf ein Arzt den Eingriff nicht durchführen?” |
| ab 19:00 |
Gemeinsames Abendessen (Ristorante Il Grappolo, Adalbertstr. 28) |
Download Programm (PDF, 1,3 MB)
Dozenten:
The rise of right-based political and moral theories is traditionally seen as involving a development towards anti-paternalism. However, many right-based, in the wider sense "liberal" theories, advocate a considerable degree of (at least weak) paternalism, that is often justified with the aim of autonomy-enhancement or with the claim that the agents, if rational, would consent to the paternalistic measures. The seminar's aim is to explore, starting from Kant's legal theory, to what extent a consistent right-based moral viz. legal theory allows for such strategies, and, conversely, whether a comprehensive rejection of all weak paternalistic measures can be consistently advocated.
Für Teilnehmer/innen der Veranstaltung stehen im kennwortgeschützten Bereich Materialien zur Verfügung.