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. Mills 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. Mills principles also discuss the framing of the plan and its consequences...

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 authors 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…