Abstract
This paper examines at a philosophical level the justification for making education compulsory, concentrating on those arguments based on the welfare of the child. These arguments rest on the principle of paternalism which, as a form of interference with a person's liberty, is distinguished from such interferences based on concern for the welfare of society on the one hand and with upholding a moral or religious principle on the other. After noting the dangers involved in the use of paternalism, possible ways of determining when it is justified are examined prior to presenting what this author holds to be the two necessary and sufficient conditions for justified paternalism. After some discussion and amplification of these conditions, they are applied to the case of compulsory education. It is found that they are satisfied in this case but only with regard to education up to a certain level. The paper ends by attempting to answer some possible objections to the argument presented.