I understand what you’re saying, but all these examples are going to be loaded and for a very good reason—they all involve paternalistically overriding another person’s wishes.
This is going to be controversial unless everybody somehow agrees that their wish is “wrong” by some standard. (and since at least one person doesn’t agree, or you wouldn’t need such overriding...)
This thinking (people cannot be trusted knowing what’s good for them) is something nobody is willing to accept in general, but everyone is perfectly willing to accept in some specific cases or other. I cannot think of any objective standard to judge when such paternalism would be appropriate and when it wouldn’t—or I can feel of a few things, but they really feel like post-hoc rationalizations.
Perhaps all examples must be some amount of ambiguous or controversial, but that doesn’t serve as a good reason to use one that is this amount of it, when there are examples less so readily available.
This is going to be controversial unless everybody somehow agrees that their wish is “wrong” by some standard.
Currently, even implying that someone is wrong makes a person look bad. For the person to be comfortable, it’s very helpful to look after their reputations. This is part of why I wouldn’t bring up the ice-cream thing in public. (The ice-cream isn’t actually something I would care about—to my personal diet views, it’s probably healthier than bread. But if you mapped it to a more serious analogous case.)
I cannot think of any objective standard to judge when such paternalism would be appropriate and when it wouldn’t
Rather than an objective standard, I find it more helpful to think about my personal behavior. How much do I want other people to trust me? The more trust I want and the more I want them to be comfortable, the more I can look out for their interests.
This thinking (people cannot be trusted knowing what’s good for them) is something nobody is willing to accept in general, but everyone is perfectly willing to accept in some specific cases or other.
I’m not sure there are actually cases where I’m perfectly willing to accept it, except for cases of trivial importance. Even if I go against their wishes, I’m quite averse to it.
I understand what you’re saying, but all these examples are going to be loaded and for a very good reason—they all involve paternalistically overriding another person’s wishes.
This is going to be controversial unless everybody somehow agrees that their wish is “wrong” by some standard. (and since at least one person doesn’t agree, or you wouldn’t need such overriding...)
This thinking (people cannot be trusted knowing what’s good for them) is something nobody is willing to accept in general, but everyone is perfectly willing to accept in some specific cases or other. I cannot think of any objective standard to judge when such paternalism would be appropriate and when it wouldn’t—or I can feel of a few things, but they really feel like post-hoc rationalizations.
Perhaps all examples must be some amount of ambiguous or controversial, but that doesn’t serve as a good reason to use one that is this amount of it, when there are examples less so readily available.
Currently, even implying that someone is wrong makes a person look bad. For the person to be comfortable, it’s very helpful to look after their reputations. This is part of why I wouldn’t bring up the ice-cream thing in public. (The ice-cream isn’t actually something I would care about—to my personal diet views, it’s probably healthier than bread. But if you mapped it to a more serious analogous case.)
Rather than an objective standard, I find it more helpful to think about my personal behavior. How much do I want other people to trust me? The more trust I want and the more I want them to be comfortable, the more I can look out for their interests.
I’m not sure there are actually cases where I’m perfectly willing to accept it, except for cases of trivial importance. Even if I go against their wishes, I’m quite averse to it.