[Article] The only time it would be logically consistent for “paternalism” is if it applies universally to all things!

[TAW122]

I wished there was a better article title for this, but the keyword being 'paternalism' is what this thread/article will be about. Many of us recognize that in this prohibitive world especially when it comes to CTB prevention, "paternalism" is prevalent and widespread. I do want to emphasize that no, I do NOT endorse nor support having paternalistic measures in every day life or so, and this is merely just for discussion and philosophical, educational purposes only.

It is no surprise that whenever it comes to discussion over the notion of CTB prevention measures, especially when discussing about how "paternalistic" they are, there are oftenly a lot of pushback and even hostility between those who support it as well as those who oppose it. More people support such practices than oppose it, and even worse, some even become aggressive and hostile (verbally and such, especially online – as I've witnessed various pro-choice people (existentialgoof and similar users) discuss with others and defenders and apologists of psychiatry as well as CTB prevention policies oftenly berate, flame, or otherwise act uncivilized towards the pro-choicers, even in various spaces where in many other topics they would otherwise have a calm dialogue and meaningful discussion). It seems that whenever the topic revolves around death or even anything that is about bodily autonomy with respect to CTB or choosing one's own death on one's own terms, they cannot have an real discussion and become emotionally charged from the get-go.

The time where it is logically consistent for 'paternalism'
So, for the sake of argument and discussion, I would only concede to 'paternalism' if it is applied universally, meaning that it doesn't simply apply only to instance and situations where it is "convenient" but it's all (most) or nothing (rarely at all). For instance, if these same CTB preventionists and pro-lifers would support having the State run their lives, major decisions (to take a big loan, to dictate how they lead their 'private' lives, what kind of decisions they do, their health (not limited to weight and diet, but other decisions), and many more), then it would be logically consistent within their framework, even if this means that the quality of life sucks. In reality they wouldn't support that and would call it 'wild', 'insane', (insert whatever adjective or noun to fit the notion), if they ever find themselves in such situations! Another thing is just imagine all the previous dictatorships throughout human history, these same people (who defend paternalism, which is a 'nice' way of tyranny and dictatorial measures imposed onto said individuals or groups.) would absolutely loathe and despise ANY such impositions on their own personal freedoms, yet they are okay with it when it comes to "CTB prevention."

I will emphasize again, this is just a position that I've argued for discussion and philosophical purposes, and I do NOT support paternalism in general. This is just a realization that I had after reading and parsing through many interactions that other vocal pro-choicers had with various anti-choicers. Of course, I would not be okay with living in a society or world that was "paternalistic" for practical and personal reasons. I just wanted to emphasize and expose the logical flaw (along with examples provided) that these CTB preventionists and anti-choicers have with regards to CTB prevention.

While I could give more examples, but the overall argument is that if these CTB preventionists support "paternalistic" practices, regardless of the harm caused, then [logically] they should support it for many other things, to which they don't, thus making them hypocrites and also disingenuous when it comes to "freedom" and autonomy. They cannot simultaneously claim to support freedom and autonomy only when it is convenient, but then selectively apply that same logic to various things! it's either they take that position or they don't.

 

[witchcraft]

Unfortunately, I have learned that not many people argue from first principles, if that's the right terminology.

To put it another way: most people don't make a serious conscious effort to avoid hypocrisy, aiming to make their arguments, opinions, or behaviors as consistent as possible.

Nobody is perfect. Especially me. I guess what I'm describing is, again, the directional effort or the ideal-being-aimed-at. "On a serious topic like CTB, I'm going to try and have a logically consistent stance." It's difficult enough as it is to entertain let alone reach conclusions that cause us negative emotions. So just considering for a moment that CTB is part of freedom or autonomy makes them uncomfortable, and they draw a line.

Most people aren't taught to think this way. It seems to be the realms of philosophy and psychology that train someone to think critically, and make a difficult effort to waterproof their reasoning (the aforementioned ideal-being-aimed-at).

Speaking as someone who is struggling with CTB thoughts and all that, I don't mean to sound like I am encouraging it. This is simply acknowledging more or less the same logic that you presented in your post.