Hello, I’m Pang Ying. Welcome to the post-debate review of whether making decisions for someone “for their own good” is reasonable. Zhan argued yes; I argued no.

Zhan complained that these reviews give me extra time to rebut her. Today I will first summarize her case fairly, then answer it. To balance that advantage,I invite you to rebut me freely in the commentsand defend Zhan’s side.

Let us begin with her three arguments.

First, when resisting another person’s decision, do you understand what you are resisting?Perhaps it is your entire life, social system, and human reality. Is that possible or desirable?

You think chopsticks are your choice, but birthplace, culture, discipline, and education have become bodily memory. Overthrowing all that is neither realistic nor wise.

To reject the whole inherited banquet while fighting over whether the first bite is a peanut or soybean is foolish. That was her first point.

Her second returned tothe collective-action dilemma.。Individually chosen decisions can make everyone worse off because people miss externalities and long-term interests.

Without compulsory public insurance, insurance itself might collapse and protect no one. That isa lose-lose outcome.Institutions such as government must sometimes decide for us.

We question government motives when it acts, but do we question motives when it refuses responsibility?

Decision-making institutions are necessary and can benefit everyone. That was her second argument.

She told warm stories of elders arranging her day. In a cold, disconnected society, gently crossing boundaries may express care and attachment.

Now my rebuttals.

Her first argument says resisting the system is impossible and wrong. I have two answers.

First, this isa false dilemma.。We need not overthrow everything or accept everything. Many intermediate degrees exist.