How Far Should the State Go to Counter Prejudice? On the Legitimacy of the Role of the State to Change Hearts and Minds

22 Pages Posted: 12 Jun 2020 Last revised: 5 Aug 2020

See all articles by Ioanna Tourkochoriti

Ioanna Tourkochoriti

Harvard Law School; National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) - School of Law; University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law

Date Written: June 9, 2020

Abstract

This article argues that it is legitimate for the state to practice soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds in order to prevent behaviour that is discriminatory. Liberals accept that it is not legitimate for the state to intervene in order to change how people think because ideas and beliefs are wrong in themselves. It is legitimate for the state to intervene with the actions of a person only when there is a risk of harm to others and when there is a threat to social coexistence. Preventive action of the state is legitimate if we consider the immaterial and material harm that discrimination causes. It causes harm to the social standing of the person, psychological harm, economic and existential harm. All these harms threaten peaceful social coexistence. This article traces a theory of permissible government action. Research in the areas of behavioural psychology, neuroscience and social psychology indicates that it is possible to bring about a change in hearts and minds. Encouraging a person to adopt the perspective of the person who has experienced discrimination can lead to empathetic understanding. This, can lead a person to critically evaluate her prejudice. The paper argues that soft paternalism towards changing hearts and minds is legitimate in order to prevent harm to others. It attempts to legitimise state coercion in order to eliminate prejudice and broader social patterns of inequality and marginalisation. And it distinguishes between appropriate and non-appropriate avenues the state could pursue in order to eliminate prejudice. Policies towards eliminating prejudice should address the rational and the emotional faculties of a person. They should aim at using methods and techniques that focus on persuasion and reduce coercion. They should raise awareness of what prejudice is and how it works in order to facilitate well-informed voluntary decisions. The version of soft paternalism towards changing minds and attitudes defended in this article makes it consistent with liberalism.

Keywords: prejudice, soft paternalism, empathy, liberalism, employment discrimination, access to goods and services

JEL Classification: K19, K31,

Suggested Citation

Tourkochoriti, Ioanna, How Far Should the State Go to Counter Prejudice? On the Legitimacy of the Role of the State to Change Hearts and Minds (June 9, 2020). Erasmus Law Review, 2020., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3622948

Ioanna Tourkochoriti (Contact Author)

Harvard Law School ( email )

125 Mt Auburn st, 3rd Floor
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

HOME PAGE: http://scholar.harvard.edu/tourkochoriti

National University of Ireland, Galway (NUIG) - School of Law ( email )

University Road
Galway
Ireland
353 (0)91 492389 (Phone)
353 (0) 91 494506 (Fax)

University of California, Berkeley - Berkeley Center on Comparative Equality & Anti-Discrimination Law

Boalt Hall
Berkeley, CA 94720-7200
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
27
Abstract Views
308
PlumX Metrics