Arguments about Paternalism by J.S. Mill

Paternalism

Paternalism is about limiting the rights of people forcefully. It includes stopping them from voicing their concerns and fears as well as suppressing their subordinates with coercion in any form (Goldman and Goldman 65). In his book ‘On Liberty’, J.S. Mill argues that no society is considered perfect where paternalism is practiced at any level as it reduces mutual respect. No one would be authorized as free due to the non-existence of absolutism and qualifications. This paper aims at presenting arguments on the topic “Why does J.S. Mill think we need to hear both sides of an argument?” The paper supports J.S. Mill’s notion, and for that, certain arguments are elaborated in the paper. Finally, examples and critical debates are put forward in support of the position.

J.S. Mill has cited that arguments shall be allowed to hear by the government and the doctrine (Mill 18). I support the same notion as that of J.S. Mill since it would let both sides of the argument substantiate before concluding. He openly declares that infallibility would exist if those who wish to defeat it deny its presence, even if truth exists. The author affirms that refusal of hearing such opinions is itself the pronouncement that paternalism exists. The governments and lawmakers should abide by this rule that Mill has stated since it would help them avoid paternalism and make the society a better living place for all with equal rights. It is widely known that serving all the individuals of a country with equity and without discrimination, especially based on gender, race, culture, religious orientation, physical or mental disabilities, etc., is part of every Constitution of the world. However, our society behaves the opposite by amending the laws when cases are brought to the judicial courts so that privileged ones are granted access to the appropriate rights and the minorities remain the most affected ones by staying underprivileged.

Mill has contended that paternalism has been evident in our society for centuries since it is based on the principles that target the subordinates or the weaker society. The suppression comes in the form of differences of opinions and tastes of people, whether they belong to the majority or the minority sect of the country. Mill’s principles also discuss the framing of the plan and its consequences in favor of the strong individuals of the society since those traits of the plan are selected that are suited for one’s benefit. Thus, it seems that liberty is exercised by only one particular section of the social order while the others either remain deprived or are impeded. The same applies to the topic selected for this paper which says that both sides of the argument should be heard, and if this rule is not exercised, it would be a refined form of paternalism where the strong ones would be heard as they would be in the majority and the weaker ones, who might be in the minority are subjected to decreased freedom of speech, thus, less liberty.

There are certain characteristics of the argument that make them authentic and must be heard from both sides. First, a good argument tends to be in detail with minute facts that might have been overlooked if both sides are not heard (Condlin 84). Second, there is more than one dimension of the argument if both sides are heard since numerous people have their own unique opinions. All must be included to keep the argument multi-dimensional. A holistic approach to the argument could be applied in this manner when a balance is maintained by not involving any bias. The argument remains one-sided if both sides are not heard; therefore, making the dispute less reasonable. Overall, the legitimate considerations should be made so that focus is not lost. Also, subtlety should be maintained for not over-emphasizing the same side of the argument repeatedly to avoid appearing biased. For example, the bilateral view of the same idea from both sides would present the listeners with equal emphasis on their own respective beliefs so that one side should not seem more important than the other.

Unless both sides are not heard, it would not be discovered which side is more logical and trustworthy. A well-thought argument should have an emotional aspect attached to it to make it believable. When words become logically arranged with ideas and facts, the arguments naturally hold weight that should depict conviction. The certainty and appropriateness are bound to convince the listeners with further discussions that might enhance the attention-worthiness.

With these assertions, the author’s position of paternalism is reiterated well since Mill believes that exerting power with coercion over the weak is not justified. The minorities should be allowed to take a stance on their opinions with equal force. The moral coercion of public opinion ought to be observed, particularly in legal penalties, so that liberty and self-protection are fairly exercised (Miller 13). This would help both sides be heard with equal attention, and the supporting and contradicting opinions should be discussed thoroughly. For preventing ‘tyranny of the majority’ (Miller 9), the democrats must behave idealistically and follow the basic standards of liberties that should be practiced equally within all the sections of the society, including both majority and minorities.

Thaler and Sunstien objected to what Miller believes in this regard. These philosophers claim that paternalism cannot be eluded since it resides over two ideologies; the first is coerced, and the second that those who practice it do it for their own good (Thaler and Sunstein 175). They present their stance that there are circumstances when public and private organizations have to make decisions that would affect most people’s choices. When the greater part of the community gains a benefit, social prosperity would be magnified. Secondly, Thaler and Sunstein said paternalism is not necessarily coercion. For example, the food items that a café introduced to its customers are not forcefully offering choices to its consumers. It is widely applied to public and private institutions working in line with the government policies so that these firms steer the public in the direction of their social welfare and in whatever direction the government likes. My opinion is still in line with Mill that it might be a reflection of coercion catering to paternalism; however, when both sides of the arguments are heard, as Mill suggests, the social welfare is maximized. People’s voice is caught, and the situation in which the people’s wellbeing is to be performed is appropriately defined. The individual characters should be addressed individually and distinctly that make the unified form of the society and are valued when both sides of the argument are known. This again forms congruence with the utilitarianism approach in which the right actions must result in the happiness of the people. The decisions are made that would affect the human lives; there would be some who would support the decisions and be affected positively. There would be some that would have opposed the decision and would be impacted negatively.

The scenario mentioned above of lives being affected positively and negatively could be best understood with the example of the argument that has momentous significance and has “two sides.” In 2015, same-sex marriages were legalized by the United States government to protect the rights of non-heterosexuals (Chappell). One side of the argument consists of the religious communities that to date heatedly debate over the verdict of the US Supreme Court since it goes against the teachings of the Bible. The other side is the US government that believes that rights of all types of genders and sexually-oriented people should be secured, as is stated in the Constitution. The government says that all couples deserve affection and the right to get married to their likely partner. Constitutions also support the clause of zero discrimination relevant to gender and sexual orientation. Although the overall percentage of gay and homosexual individuals within the US is quite low compared to the heterosexual people in the country (Newport), homosexuals could be considered minorities here for which the decision was coerced. The word ‘coercion’ is used because it was against the Bible’s obligations and in contradiction of God’s teachings in which the majority of the US citizens believed.

The debate went on the brink of separating the Church and the state since the Church saw the social welfare being minimized and the liberty that God has provided to its followers was subjected to harm. The debate has still not ended and continues whenever the scenario of same-sex marriage takes place in America, like the Pope’s rejection to bless the same-sex couples after marriage. The Church people strongly believe that ecclesial blessing is not for those against the Bible teachings as God has only allowed marriages of man and woman, and not same-sex, which is entirely illicit.

The unduly powers of the influential people, especially those in the governmental positions, tend to impose their inclinations onto society by lawmaking and policy devising, favoring some and opposing the others. The imbalances of power distribution have been in the governmental and corporate arenas for ages, which seems inevitable. So does paternalism, as one party considered strong due to its influential power, would try to override the weak one and restrain its opinions or choices. The moral convictions should not be exposed to the barriers of paternalism when it comes to hearing of two sides of the argument. As Mill signifies the “Liberty of Thought” (Mill 17), not giving in to the political and economic monarchy and hierarchy. Religious tolerations and free institutionalism should be both philosophical and practical by instilling the featured characteristics of a good argument, mentioned earlier, from both sides so that the rational grounds of the same argument could be probed in a better way.