PHI1630 Contemporary Ethical Problems - Shanghai Summer 2019

I kind of agree with Ricardo's ideas about Paternalism. The purpose of paternalism is for the welfare, needs and interests of the relative people. It can be divided into two situations: one is to prevent people from self-harm, the other is to enhance people's interests while its measures restrict the freedom or rights of the relative people to varying degrees. However, some laws or policies are public welfare from a social point of view and paternalism from a personal point of view.
For Ricardo's idea about "it is better for individuals to be able to exercise choice", I think because of the unreliability of many human choices, we should not assume that the instrumentalist view of free choice is persuasive in all contexts. I think we do should respect personal choices, but can individuals really know where their interests lie under any circumstances? Or we can say, is it right that people make decisions at least better than third parties do for themselves? This claim is not supported in real life and we can't give a clear answer. In the case of smokers, alcoholics and bulimics, their choices cannot be rationally considered as the best way to improve their good life, which is, in these circumstances, people's choices cannot be considered the best choice to improve their welfare.
Therefore, I cannot choose a specific side to say whether Paternalism or self choice would be better, just as Dworkin says at the end of the article: "If there is an alternative way of accomplishing the desired end without restricting liberty although it may involve great expense, inconvenience, etc. the society must adopt it.".

“Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that shall not do with his life for his own benefit what be choose to do with it” - said Mill. I agree with Mill.  Isn’t paternalism just a way to force people. Given it a acceptable philosophy name? How do you determine wether it is beneficial to that individual ? Human are too persist in self benefit. Most people, to be precise. As it says on Google, examples of paternalism in everyday life are laws which require seat belts, wearing helmets while riding a motorcycle, and banning certain drugs. but what I think it is a way to restrict others, it should be belong to some other idea, but not as a individual idea of philosophy. letting other doing things is against individual's negative right. A negative paternalistic explanation of slavery is one that claims that slave holders held slaves because they believed it was in the slaves best interest or an explanation that claims that slaves viewed their masters in a manner similar to the way children see their guardians. which is against human right. How do you define if a person has the ability or not that they need others to take care of them, and to determine for them. Everyone is born free and equal. Society has made them different, and society has conduct paternalism for the moral and utilitarian purpose. I believe human don't even has the real right, right only exist when people are together, there should not be any positive right, only negative rights make sense under a society. Therefore I agree with Mill that Paternalism shall not hold.

Perhaps because of the propaganda, I was convinced that drug is something that can be so harmful to the society that it should be banned 100%. However, I studied in America, where various kinds of drugs are acceptable. Just a few years ago, New York States, the state which I’m living in, allowed people to carry 100 g of weed on the street. After such a decision I’m not so concerned. There are so many students in my university smoke weed in the night the day before and go to the class seems without any influence. I also leant from my psychology classes that weed has actually less toxicity than alcohol. In fact, marijuana is less addicted and less toxocarid than alcohol, cigarette, and even ****. I used to believe that all drug should be banned, and anyone who use drug is considered to be immoral, until I heard the examples of Portuguese. Portuguese use to have a huge drug problem and after it decriminalize all the drug, the problem goes away. At 2000, every 104 people in a million of its citizens died from drug usage. Now, it’s only 3 people compare to the average of EU, which is 10 people.

However, in China, this discussion is inappropriate, we need to consider the the history of China, especially the history when Chinese citizens are referred as “东亚病夫”, and the recent history of Chinese government’s strong regulation and prohibition of drugs. Talking about decriminalizing drugs in China is inappropriate, irresponsible and impossible.

Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. It is from Mill in page 385. I think he is half right and half wrong. It is true that parents are the first teachers for kids. During this period, parents tell kids how to perform in any situations. Kids always do what their parents tell them to do. In this way, kids become the creature of ripe years. They do not react by their wills or wishes. It’s the truth. In my opinion, it is good for kids to follow their parents’ directions in their early periods for the simple reason that they have no idea what the morality is. They may act what they like. Most of actions are impolite and may offend other people unconsciously. For example, kids are likely to argue with other kids to get one toy. They do not know how to share with others at all. In this situation, it is necessary to be taught by adults for kids. By learning, they could make fewer mistakes and act politely. Sometimes they just have no idea to deal things in a more proper way.
Also, kids could not make decisions by themselves wisely at all. They are more likely to do things they like. They will be easily attracted by the candy advertisement or some new toys. They are very curious to all things when they are young and naïve. However, when they grow up, they can make their own decisions by themselves. I do not think things they learn when they are kids will affect their decisions. If so, everyone would not be so struggling when they need to make decisions. They have already known how to deal with these situations. For example, Jobs, the founder of Apple, quit the Stanford University. He must make the decision for himself and his own benefits. He thought it was useless to spend time in university. He wanted to do something cool. I do not think parents will teach their kids to quit university at all. In this way, he did it for his own benefits. Ripe years only help people to know values and norms. However, every individual must make their own decision by themselves.

I totally agree that there’s  not a thing called absolute free will. Once you know what is happening and try to predict the outcome, your decision was influenced by your prediction. Every happens for a reason, and there was a chain effect, your decision are the most logically suitable part of the chain effect, thus, I agree there’s no free will exists.