View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

The public debate facilitates the expression of individuals’ valuation of the new
paradigm.
In the micro state of nature which resulted from the emergence of the new paradigm
about smoking, public debate followed. This provided the opportunity for the
expression of people’s values about whether smoking in all public places should be
banned. With the emergence of more scientific evidence, so smoking in public places
became increasingly unacceptable. Smoking was banned in many areas, such as
hospitals, school grounds, and some restaurants and bars. Those who supported the old
paradigm argued that the legislation was unnecessarily restricting to people’s individual
freedom to smoke where they chose. Some bar owners argued that they would lose
significant income from people who wanted to enjoy a drink and smoke at the same
time. In support of the new paradigm, people argued that the harm done both to non-
smokers by passive smoking and the hope that banning smoking in public places may
encourage people to give up an unhealthy and increasingly unsociable habit justified
the restriction of individual liberty.
Stage 3 to 4 of values-based law – success of the new paradigm.
Ultimately, it is the outcome of the conflict between old and new paradigms that
determines which succeeds. But how does a new paradigm succeed and what fixes it?
Kuhn argued that a new paradigm is fixed by the assent of the relevant community
(1996, p. 94). For instance, a new scientific paradigm is fixed by the assent of the
scientific community. A new political paradigm is fixed by the assent of the political
community. Thus, the normal laws, rules and conventions which exist to maintain
social order are fixed by the assent of society. In short, the new paradigm must be
sufficiently valued by enough members of the relevant community for it to successfully
replace the old paradigm.
In political revolution, Kuhn acknowledges that mass persuasion and even force may be
necessary to encourage people to adopt the new paradigm (1996, p. 93). The majority
of the community – scientific or political – must be convinced to value the new
paradigm sufficiently (for whatever reason) for it to succeed.
89