Pang Ying:Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Today’s motion is:Is it reasonable to make decisions for someone ‘for their own good’?。

This extends our last topic: if withholding information is supposedly good for you, may we do it? We will take the question beyond terminal illness.

Consistent with last episode, Ms. Zhan says such paternalism is reasonable; I say it is not.

First, please close your laptop, affirmative speaker. It is making noise.

(Laughter)

Now the affirmative may begin.

Zhan Qingyun:I’ll change the format and ask questions. During a pandemic, may government mandate vaccines for your own good?

Pang Ying:No.

Zhan Qingyun:May it require masks?

Pang Ying:It depends on the decision process. If people decide collectively, yes; if government simply decides for your good, no.

Zhan Qingyun:So it cannot even require masks. May it require masks on planes and trains?

Pang Ying:It depends on the process. Zhan Qingyun: May government require seat belts?

Pang Ying:Not merely because it claims to know what is good for me, regardless of my wishes.

Zhan Qingyun:If you refuse a seat belt on the highway, may government force you?

Pang Ying:Highway driving affects others. If the public collectively enacted the rule, yes.

Zhan Qingyun:But as one member of the public you object. May government still require it?

Pang Ying:If the seat-belt law was collectively made, I should obey.

Zhan Qingyun:I understand. Another set of questions—you are very uncooperative.

Pang Ying:Why would I cooperate with my opponent?

Zhan Qingyun:Easy questions, Ms. Pang. Don’t be nervous or assume my argument.

Pang Ying:I know your position; I’m not assuming it.

Zhan Qingyun:Do you think today’s choices are all your own rather than decisions made for you?

Pang Ying:Not necessarily in reality, though ideally they should be.

Zhan Qingyun:Why did you observe a thirty-kilometer speed limit while driving to eat Northeastern food?