Write a paper using one of the following prompts. Your paper should be roughly 2000 words.
Prompt 1
Consider this argument for coercive paternalism:
- No one wants to be sick, or get injured, eat unhealthy food, take poisonous drugs, go bankrupt in retirement, be homeless, poor, ill-educated, and so on. But it’s hard for most people to avoid all these bad outcomes without constraints or incentives. Rules and regulations imposed by the state are the most effective means to minimizing the unnecessary and unwanted harm people can do to themselves. So it is permissible for the state to ban or limit or disincentivize behavior that is an impediment to the flourishing of its citizens, just as parents control behavior that is an impediment to the flourishing of their children.
How would an anti-paternalist respond to this argument? If the argument has flaws or is incomplete, can they be repaired or filled in? What sort of paternalism—if any—is justified? Whatever your conclusions, your paper should present and evaluate objections on both sides, and should make use of distinctions and ideas from Glod’s book.
Prompt 2
Consider the following passage from Wax, describing “traditionalism”:
- Both Burke and Oakeshott acknowledge that institutional change is an ineluctable part of social and economic life. Traditions evolve and customs transform themselves. Neither thinker is categorically opposed to change. Burke’s commentators, for example, have repeatedly noted Burke’s acknowledgment that reform is inevitable and that change, when properly guided, can be a source of renewal. Oakeshott, likewise, recognizes that institutions are not static and that modifications are sometimes in order. The attitude prescribed, however, is one of mild resistance or cautious acquiescence rather than enthusiastic embrace. “Looks good on paper” is never enough. Small, stepwise, piecemeal alterations are always preferable to radical transformations, however appealing such programs seem in theory.
Shouldn’t we “enthusiastically embrace” all sorts of institutional change? One might think that we should not offer “mild resistance” to the proposal to allow inter-racial marriage, or to ban child labor, or give women the vote. Is there a version of “traditionalism” that you would accept?
Or is the truth in traditionalism simply the platitude that we should carefully evaluate the pros and cons of any proposal to radically transform society? If you think there’s more truth in traditionalism than that, what sorts of change would traditionalism tend to inhibit? Whatever your conclusions, your paper should present and evaluate objections on both sides, and should make use of distinctions and ideas from Wax’s paper.
In reading your paper, we will be asking these questions:
- Is the paper well-written (no grammatical mistakes, no convoluted sentences, clear expression of ideas)?
- Are philosophical ideas and arguments from the reading represented accurately?
- Are good reasons given for the paper’s claims?
- Does the paper show evidence that the student has thought through the topic?
As you know, all your writing must be your own; please refresh your memory of class policies by consulting the syllabus. MIT’s policies about academic integrity may be found here: Academic Integrity: A Handbook for Students.
This essay is due during session 27 and will count for 25% of the course grade.
