Soda, Soda, Soda
In the past couple years people all around the nation, whether it's in New York City or an 8th Grade classroom in Michigan, people have been pressed with the question, whether the New York Soda Ban, is a good thing, improving health, or if there is a larger issue. Is this decision showing evidence of the Government interfering with our basic civil liberties? In three writing pieces in particular, they show three very different points of view on this very contradicting topic. In Three cheers for the Nanny state, the author talks about how in 1859 John Stuart Mill wrote, “The only justifiable reason to interfere in someone's freedom of action was to prevent harm to others.” But that is not true. Our minds have their own way
…show more content…
They also have opinions along the same lines, and they think certain things go with both sides, In Three cheers for the nanny state , the argumentative essay that believes in the soda ban, is always talking about how we should just go with the flow, and clearly understand that if a law is too painful it wouldn’t be a law, it also makes us feel belittled in the face of ourselves, it talks about how we all see ourselves as these rational beings but that's not true how we all need to understand that we gave a little bit of that up in the beginning of the upbringing of the government we know today, it was also the only essay that was featured in my perspectives that was for the ban, but what one may found interesting is that all three of the essays included facts about smoking, also two of the three essays talked about slippery slopes, another thing that seemed strange was that the two essays that agreed that the soda ban was wrong, took two very different approaches when arguing their claim, Ban the Ban, mostly talked about how the ban will affect everyone near and far, about how the choices of what you want are now taken away, and then Sodas a problem but talks about how the law is flawed, and how Mayor bloomberg was in the wrong when making this law, these three essays were not only different but similar, and that's what made each one
The New York Soda Ban is a step in the wrong direction and efforts should be put towards making life better, rather than focusing on a movement that will have little to no effect. Realize that I am not stating the soda should be drank, because even I know that soda is harmful towards the body and is one of the leading causes of obesity. However, I believe that the soda ban will have little effect and that time and money should be applied somewhere where the act would have an effect of making life better. The reason I do not believe this ban will do as much good as stated, is because the ban is flawed. This brings me to my first point, which is, one cup of boysenberry juice has 256 grams of sugar, equaling to 225 calories. One cup of Cola only
As I have mentioned earlier, Mill is against paternalism and Dworkin claims that paternalism is justifiable. Now to answer the question that was proposed earlier, is paternalism morally justified? And should it be implemented or not? In this case I would have to argue against that paternalism is not morally justified and it should not be implemented. I will agree with Mill’s idea about what the harm principle is and it states that a person can do whatever he wants as long as his actions do not harm others. A person is free to do whatever they please. We all have liberty and we can decide what we want to do with that. Mill focuses on the three basic categories of liberty: 1. Liberties of conscience and expression. 2. Liberties of taste, pursuits, and life-plans. 3. Liberties of association. Note here that Mill does not defend liberty per se (by itself), but only with certain basic liberties of it. Basic liberties are not intrinsically good per se, but only conditional intrinsic good. Basic liberties are intrinsically valuable but only when various necessary conditions. And we can also say that liberties are necessary conditions to exercise of our higher capacities. But these liberties are limited by the harm
John Stuart Mills is wrong when it comes to his rejection of paternalism. Mills is taking a position that is in line with that of classical liberalism which in many ways is in opposition to paternalism. This ideology only acknowledges the individual and does not take in account the larger society. Many do not like to be told what is right when it deals with something that does not affect anyone but themselves. The issue with this is that individuals are part of something. They are part of a family, community, city and nation. The impact of those choices might be seen as insignificant and not have relevance outside of their own lives but it is a small picture view and forgets about the big picture. Mills is right that paternalism is taking away liberties but those liberties affect others in ways that a person might see. Society should act as a parent to its individuals because they could cause weakness or issues that go beyond the realm of one’s own household.
After reading both articles, “Paternalism” by Dworkin and “On Liberty” by Mill, I believe that Dworkin is correct in explaining that some intervention is necessary under certain circumstances. I have come to this conclusion based on the fact that there do exist circumstances in which an individual is incapable of making a rational decision considering not only the well being of himself, but also the well being of other members of society. Also, the argument that the protection of the individual committing the action in question is not reason enough to interfere with the action is ludicrous in that one of our governments main reasons for existence is to protect the members of our society. This protection includes protection from ourselves at times when we are unable to rationally decide what is in our best interests. This essay will consist of an examination of this controversy as well as an application of my proposed conclusion.
Freedom is a necessary principle to abide by in order for the human race to function. On the other hand, freedom can be taken advantage of, thus resulting in harmful consequences to those directly and indirectly involved. The article, “On Liberty” by John S. Mills, places emphasis on the functioning of individual liberty and its co-existence with society. Mills stresses the limits of individual liberty through what is famously known as his Harm Principle: "the only purpose for which power may be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant" (Cahn). With special consideration placed on drug use and free speech, this paper will delve deeper into the matter of an individual’s sovereignty.
It’s no secret that Central Oregon is a brewtopia for craft beers and breweries, but there’s a new beverage trending in America that’s being brewed right here in Bend as well¬––hard cider. Traditional cider is an alcoholic beverage made from the fermented juice of apples, pears, peaches and other fruit. This flavorful libation, once the beverage of choice in America, is waging a comeback.
This article is talking about a mayor banning beverages larger than 16 oz. at restaurants, sports arenas and movie theaters. The reason this mayor wants to ban large sodas is because he is afraid for all of New York’s health. That’s a good thing because a lot of us don’t know what we drink and eat most of the time. We just eat our food we don’t even bother to look what’s really in side such as calories, fats and oils in our food. This Mayor is doing New York a huge favor by banning large sodas. He’s helping everyone in New York about their health but people of New York doesn’t see that. There are people who are trying to not let him pass this law because some of them probably drink 16 oz. every day of once a week or twice a week or even more.
What is the best food to eat at 3 in the morning? It’s obviously pizza! But what toppings should go on top of the delicious pie is the real debate. When you hear people order "pineapple on pizza," they are either salivating in anticipation or gagging in disgust. The first time I heard about Hawaiian Pizza that includes pineapple on top, I cringed. When I saw it, I cringed harder, and when I first laid the doughy flatbread on my tongue, I cringed the hardest. As someone who loves pineapple and pizza separately and an avid food enthusiast, I know pizza. I have eaten plenty of pizzas before ranging from ordinary cheese to upscale vegan pizza. Pizza should be made with care, with love, and with delectable savory toppings selected with attentiveness. It is not meant to be randomly covered by a sugary tropical fruit.
John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle states, “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (On Liberty, p. 9). That is to say, if a harmful action violates an individual’s rights, then such an action warrants state regulation. Mill applies the Harm Principle to many cases. For an instance, he considers offenses against decency, or the violation of good public manners. He states that the state can regulate public offensive conduct if it imposes harm on others by placing them in “undesirable states,” or sentiments of great disgust and discomfort. Furthermore, Mill states that while the state can restrict acts that are deemed as “disgusting” or causing
Food is a major part of everyone’s everyday life. It’s hard to imagine life without the chocolate cake on your fingers or a carne asada taco in your mouth. Enjoying delicious desserts and fast food seem extremely magnificent to eat and spend money buying them. Although, there have been many controversies in the United States on how it’s the largest country with the most obesity regarding children, which affects their health, many people are still going throughout their day snacking. Many people in America are having full course meals with thousands of calories in one sitting not knowing the short term or long term side effects that are going to take a huge toll on their lives. Food is delicious, but it comes with a secret behind the savoriness/sweetness.
Would you drink something that is associated with health problems and even death? Well energy drinks are highly caffeinated beverages that many people have become depended on to get through certain things that need done. They are used to give individuals a quick energy boost to get things done. Today many people question how safe energy drinks really are for the quick energy they supply. In fact, a sixteen year old girl died of cardiac arrest just after ingesting an energy drink, while on vacation with friends. Almost everyone who enjoys drinking energy drinks, knows that high levels of caffeine are in these beverages, and they continue to drink the ignoring the risks. But some people are fine with the high levels of caffeine and just drink them because it makes them feel energized. They seem to accept the shocking circumstances because it helps them gets things done when they need the most energy. On the other hand, some people disagree and think that it is not only bad for individuals
Do you know what the most commonly used drug around the world is? It’s not cocaine nor marijuana, but surprisingly caffeine.
Nonetheless, negative freedom does not mean that individuals should have absolute and unrestricted freedom. Classical liberals, such as J.S. Mill, believe that if freedom is unlimited it can lead to “license”, namely the right to harm others or to infringe their “natural” rights to “life, liberty and property”. In this way, Classical Liberals often support minimal restrictions on the individual so as to prevent individuals from inflicting harm upon each other. However, it should be borne in mind that Classical Liberals do not accept any constraints upon the individual that prevent him from damaging himself, physically or mentally, since the individual still remains sovereign. Such a view of freedom means that classical liberals generally advocate the establishment of a minimal or “nightwatch” state, whose role is limited to the protection of individuals from other individuals.
...nturies. Mill presents a clear and insightful argument, claiming that the government should not be concerned with the free will of the people unless explicit harm has been done to an individual. However, such ideals do not build a strong and lasting community. It is the role of the government to act in the best interests at all times through the prevention of harm and the encouragement of free thought.
Junk food has been proven to be unhealthy long time ago. Junk food started to grow more and more recently and spread fast all over the world. Junk food reveals any food with high calories and low nutritional value. A big problem with junk foods is that satiation value of them is low, that means people need to eat a large amount of that unhealthy foods to feel full. So it is like eating a lot of poisons for a long time, what do you think the result will be on the health condition of the humans? Another problem of junk foods tend to replace other healthy foods; people who drink a lot of soda there is no room for healthy natural fruit juice in their stomach, people who are snacking on cookies, they’re not eating fruits and healthy vegetables (WebMD