Two different people, Janet and Roger, wrote an essay about paternalism, the action of one person interfering with another, and what a paternalist does, breaking moral rules of independency. Janet was a college freshman while Roger was completing his doctoral work in philosophy. Roger knew how to write as an authority within the topic while Sarah was just an outsider, all of which reflected in their prework, writing styles, and the eventual essay.
As for who I am most like, I am a mix of the two. When it comes to arguing my case I’m headstrong like Janet. I act like my beliefs are the truth unless I can be proven otherwise. Without evidence, I take the other side with a grain of salt. The evidence I have for my topic is what gives me the authority to argue my point, after all I know for a fact my side is true, and have the ability to prove it. And even in certain situations where I don’t have evidence like for example, being blamed for not doing something I know I did, I will not back down because I don’t like my work and/or experiences to be diminished. But like Roger, I do tend to not explicitly discuss the topic at hand, using easier-to-understand examples to support my argument. I still talk about the issue, but it’s only towards the end after I lay it all out. This in general makes me a bit annoying to argue against because once I have authority in my argument, I only will back down until you either accept my point or manage to prove me otherwise. I also rarely change my mind, so….good luck.
Leave a Reply