3 ms·

But isn't it a mistake to call it "benign paternalism"? It wasn't benign to me. Children, even though they aren't capable of fending for themselves apart from t

But isn't it a mistake to call it "benign paternalism"? It wasn't benign to me. Children, even though they aren't capable of fending for themselves apart from their parents, are still people. Isn't the entire point to do what's best for each child? Isn't it commonly understood that we're all different in positive ways, and that this is something to celebrate, rather than to blithely crush?

patio11 15y ago
Benign paternalism means "we're not acting of malice", not that every well-off kid with great options and social support networks will have their heart sing hymns of praise at the notion of being forced to attend class every day. It was an imposition on you to go to school. At the time, it may even have felt like a major imposition. You'll get over it. We imposed upon your time because e.g. a poor kid in your local inner city who prefers hanging to all that books n' shit would, with about 100% certainty, durably ruin their life given the option not to attend school. It is very hard to "get over" being poor, illiterate, with a criminal record, etc.
- maxharris 15y ago
  I didn't become the person I am today as a result of anyone else's effort but my own. No one took my exams for me, nor did they read my textbooks and do the mental work of integrating facts and diagrams and the like. No one made me love my wife, or decide to get married. No one else decided that I would learn or do anything that did me any good. Why do you assume I was a well-off kid, or that I had great a social support network? There were a couple of times (early on) when my parents were flat-out broke. I didn't wear new clothes to school until I was thirteen. Even the poor inner city kid has free choice. It is simply not true that all people will deterministically fail given the same adverse circumstances. Why did Michael Faraday rise to become a prominent physicist and chemist, despite his poor background and total lack of social support? At adulthood, despite whatever adverse conditions endured previously, all people are responsible for their own lives (excepting people who truly cannot help it, i.e., those with grave mental illnesses).
  - tptacek 15y ago
    If you think social policy should be premised on the idea that any random person is likely to be Michael Faraday, there probably isn't much productive discussion about policy to be had with you. That doesn't make you wrong, just an intractable absolutist.
    - maxharris 15y ago
      I don't think that any particular random person, given only that information and nothing more, is likely to be the next Faraday. But I know for a fact that it is possible for any person to be, and that the same can't be said for any other type of living entity (e.g., a dog). And for the record, I am a contextual absolutist, which is something altogether different than an absolutist.
      - hans00 15y ago
        "contextual absolutist" - nice oxymoron, Einstein.
        maxharris 15y ago
        Seriously, it isn't an oxymoron. To claim certainty in a given context of knowledge is foundational for both philosophy and the special sciences (such as physics, chemistry, etc.) Contextual absolutism amounts to saying, "Given all the things I know (this is part of the context), I am absolutely certain of this conclusion. I am aware that it is possible that I might come across yet more facts that might cause me to revise or even abandon my conclusion, but right now, I know this much." (To conclude that something is possible, or probable, and not yet certain is itself an example of this process.) To use your example, people often claim that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. But I disagree. Newton's context included observations of the local solar system, and depended on the instruments of his time. His system still works in the majority of situations encountered today. Because the context hasn't changed appreciably in those situations, we can apply his mechanics and claim that they are correct. Conversely, GPS and particle physics and the like are out of bounds, contextually. For that, you must understand relativity, which is another truth that is absolutely true in a still wider context. Of course, there is a price to pay for relativity, which is extra computational and pedagogical complexity. Indeed, this alone is enough to keep Newton around for millennia to come. Remember that knowledge is not an end in itself, despite what some may say. All knowledge is a means to some end. We don't all know the same things, and we can't anyway. Finally, how could we ever get to the point where we can appreciate relativity, or engineer systems where it is necessary to know about that if we were to simply discard Newton's theory as "false"? Science (and indeed all knowledge) is all about what some deride as mere "scaffolding." But I don't deride it - and that's why I'm a contextual absolutist.

patio11 15y ago

Benign paternalism means "we're not acting of malice", not that every well-off kid with great options and social support networks will have their heart sing hymns of praise at the notion of being forced to attend class every day. It was an imposition on you to go to school. At the time, it may even have felt like a major imposition. You'll get over it. We imposed upon your time because e.g. a poor kid in your local inner city who prefers hanging to all that books n' shit would, with about 100% certainty, durably ruin their life given the option not to attend school. It is very hard to "get over" being poor, illiterate, with a criminal record, etc.

maxharris 15y ago
I didn't become the person I am today as a result of anyone else's effort but my own. No one took my exams for me, nor did they read my textbooks and do the mental work of integrating facts and diagrams and the like. No one made me love my wife, or decide to get married. No one else decided that I would learn or do anything that did me any good. Why do you assume I was a well-off kid, or that I had great a social support network? There were a couple of times (early on) when my parents were flat-out broke. I didn't wear new clothes to school until I was thirteen. Even the poor inner city kid has free choice. It is simply not true that all people will deterministically fail given the same adverse circumstances. Why did Michael Faraday rise to become a prominent physicist and chemist, despite his poor background and total lack of social support? At adulthood, despite whatever adverse conditions endured previously, all people are responsible for their own lives (excepting people who truly cannot help it, i.e., those with grave mental illnesses).
- tptacek 15y ago
  If you think social policy should be premised on the idea that any random person is likely to be Michael Faraday, there probably isn't much productive discussion about policy to be had with you. That doesn't make you wrong, just an intractable absolutist.
  - maxharris 15y ago
    I don't think that any particular random person, given only that information and nothing more, is likely to be the next Faraday. But I know for a fact that it is possible for any person to be, and that the same can't be said for any other type of living entity (e.g., a dog). And for the record, I am a contextual absolutist, which is something altogether different than an absolutist.
    - hans00 15y ago
      "contextual absolutist" - nice oxymoron, Einstein.
      - maxharris 15y ago
        Seriously, it isn't an oxymoron. To claim certainty in a given context of knowledge is foundational for both philosophy and the special sciences (such as physics, chemistry, etc.) Contextual absolutism amounts to saying, "Given all the things I know (this is part of the context), I am absolutely certain of this conclusion. I am aware that it is possible that I might come across yet more facts that might cause me to revise or even abandon my conclusion, but right now, I know this much." (To conclude that something is possible, or probable, and not yet certain is itself an example of this process.) To use your example, people often claim that Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. But I disagree. Newton's context included observations of the local solar system, and depended on the instruments of his time. His system still works in the majority of situations encountered today. Because the context hasn't changed appreciably in those situations, we can apply his mechanics and claim that they are correct. Conversely, GPS and particle physics and the like are out of bounds, contextually. For that, you must understand relativity, which is another truth that is absolutely true in a still wider context. Of course, there is a price to pay for relativity, which is extra computational and pedagogical complexity. Indeed, this alone is enough to keep Newton around for millennia to come. Remember that knowledge is not an end in itself, despite what some may say. All knowledge is a means to some end. We don't all know the same things, and we can't anyway. Finally, how could we ever get to the point where we can appreciate relativity, or engineer systems where it is necessary to know about that if we were to simply discard Newton's theory as "false"? Science (and indeed all knowledge) is all about what some deride as mere "scaffolding." But I don't deride it - and that's why I'm a contextual absolutist.