Hard Paternalism, Personal Accountability, and Justice

What makes this paper effective

• The paper clearly distinguishes between soft and hard paternalism from the outset, grounding its argument in Goldman and Goldman's definitions before challenging them with concrete social examples.
• It uses a focused, real-world case study—age-based alcohol and tobacco restrictions—to make an abstract philosophical debate tangible and accessible.
• The argument moves logically from exposition to critique, using both statistical evidence and philosophical authority (Mill, Dworkin, Cudd) to build a multi-layered defense of its thesis.

Key academic technique demonstrated

This paper exemplifies the "expose-then-challenge" technique common in applied ethics writing: it first faithfully reconstructs a theoretical position (GG's justification of paternalism) and then systematically identifies its internal contradictions—particularly the tension between utilitarian cost-benefit logic and the real, hidden costs of hard paternalism for minority populations. This approach demonstrates philosophical engagement rather than simple disagreement.

Structure breakdown

The paper follows a four-part structure: an introduction that states the thesis, an exposition section that presents GG's argument on its own terms, a defense section that applies the thesis to concrete examples with supporting sources, and a conclusion that synthesizes the argument's implications. Each section builds directly on the previous, maintaining a coherent argumentative arc throughout.