Abstract

Classical utilitarianism in its “pureµ (i.e. hedonistic and aggregative) version is normally considered as incapable of principled objections against paternalistic interventions. This article seeks to inquire whether this is true, by putting forward different interpretations of the “best judge principleµ (as endorsed by utilitarians since Bentham and J.S. Mill) and applying them to different versions and conceptions of paternalism.