Throughout this paper, Penrose and Geisler conduct a comparison and contrast study between two subjects on the topic of “Paternalism”. Paternalism, as Janet described it, is “the action of one person interfering with another”. Janet also described the purpose of paternalism as to “break moral rules of independence”. I understand and agree with Janet’s interpretation of paternalism because I believe that she described the concept in a straightforward manner. Authorities are paternalist and being that they are superior in whatever department, you have little to no say in what transpires in that situation. Also, being that an authority figure has the final say in what happens in a situation, that would mean they have the power to interfere with the situation of another person, whether it is helpful or harmful to the individual.
Rogers’ approach to explaining paternalism was more demonstrative, in contrast to Janet’s being direct. Rogers mentions different paternalistic relationships which would give a visual representation of what Rogers sees paternalistic relationships as. His example was the relationship between a patient and a doctor which I think is a good choice because it somewhat goes against Janet’s direct and more negative description of paternalistic relationships. If an individual has authority/control over another in a relationship, does that classify them as one who “breaks moral rules of independence”? I also agree with Roger’s usage of relationships to describe what paternalism looks like from a more generalized and open perspective
Being that Janet and Rogers come from different backgrounds, it provides them with separate perspectives and ways of thinking. Janet was a college freshman at the time and Rogers was in the process of completing his doctoral studies. Because of this, Rogers was familiar with the studies of ethics, which Janet lacked. Being that Rogers is an “insider” the difference in knowledge between them was in Roger’s favor because of his credibility and expertise.
Leave a Reply