It is often argued that governments ought to enforce healthy diets for the citizens so that the people stay healthy, whereas others maintain that people should have the right to choose their own dietary plans and not be given a fixed one. I am inclined to argue that it should be an individual’s own choice completely, primarily because forcing someone to follow a certain diet plan may not always have positive outcomes.
The principal justification for believing governments should force people to follow a healthy diet lies in the fact that by making people follow a certain diet, the governments can ensure that the citizens stay healthy and active. This argument rests primarily on the premise that if the citizens are healthy and active, they would put in better efforts at work. This, in turn, can lead to having a more productive workforce who can deliver a greater outcome. This can be illustrated by considering a worker. If they continuously eat fast food, it is a possibility that they might fall sick and not be able to work further. However, if governments intervene and force every worker to eat healthy, not only will the people have good health, but also will be able to work for a longer period because of it.
Proponents of the other side put forward an equally compelling argument, namely that having the freedom allows individuals to have flexibility in terms of choosing what they eat. The rationale underpinning the perspective is that there might be a situation sometimes where the food may not readily be available everywhere. In this case, following a healthy diet can become difficult. On balance, I consider this perspective more persuasive because having the freedom would allow the individuals to eat whatever they can afford and find available.
In conclusion, although enforcing a healthy diet offers certain advantages, I contend that the individuals should at least be given the independence to choose their own diet as this is the basic right of a human.