In an absolute sense, yes, there's lots of parentalism in Civilization; and decreasing it is an ongoing problem that lots of Very Serious People worry about, not least because they're explicitly worried about selection pressures for being okay with whatever level of paternalism is allowed to prevail.
In Golarion he observes a notable tendency for city governments and kingdoms to ban books that might lead people into heresy; and not offer those books for sale in Ill-Advised Consumer Goods stores to anyone who's old enough, or any child who passes a requisite competence test about it. In Golarion, once the city-level or national-level government or maybe just a powerful local church decides you're not allowed to buy a book, or a drug, or in some places a night with a sex worker, that's just The Rule and there's no exception for anyone.
(One could conceivably argue that Golarion's policy is really the same as dath ilan's policy; it's just that nobody in Golarion can pass those competence tests, so nobody in Golarion is allowed to go to an Ill-Advised Consumer Goods store, so they might as well not exist. However, it seems to him that the competence test of the individual ought to be calibrated to the competence of the government that wants to overrule them, and governments in Golarion couldn't pass those dath ilani competence tests either.)
People in Golarion are being selected to be okay with much greater levels of obnoxious interference in their lives, so far as he can tell. It's just that the claim of those governments to be acting on behalf of the individual, with all their meddling rules and prohibitions, is not even that believable. So it's not, at that point, selection pressure about being okay with real actual parentalism from an entity that plausibly does have your best interests at heart. It's about submitting to a Golarion government that will otherwise torture or execute you...
...but this is getting off-track from the key point, and the rule he knows for cases like that is to review the local stack trace.
A couple of stack layers up, Carissa was putting forth the predicted-but-not-confirmed-observation evidence of "an average slave prefers to stay alive, and is predicted by me to want that even if they were guaranteed to go to Axis or Elysium" (is his paraphrase okay?) as moral input into the question of how bad it is to prevent people from existing in a life that's hard or unfair. Carissa had also proposed an experiment about explaining to someone about Greater Reality, and then offering them 10,000gp in exchange for a fifty percent chance of being eaten by a daemon under controlled conditions (paraphrase okay?), as moral input into how bad of an individual-choice violation would be involved in destroying Creation.
The problem from his perspective is that if an average slave doesn't choose Elysium, he's not clear on to what extent that implies a general problem with truly believing that Elysium is real, versus a strong coherent preference to stay in Golarion. Carissa then put forth a claim that it was morally imperative on him not to test whether an individual's preferences were coherent or their beliefs accurate, just obey their stated decisions (paraphrase okay?). But in the moral system he knows, there's no obvious systematic way to put forth an absolute deontological-rule like that, rather than a defeasible deontological-pressure, without implying that eight-year-olds should be absolutely allowed to take truicidal actions that they don't know are truicidal but that they say they want to do. Carissa replied that letting people go to Hell is indeed too far, implying it's a deontological-pressure rather than a deontological-rule, and said that Heaven vs Greater Reality should be up to the individual.
He tentatively agrees with leaving Heaven vs Greater Reality to the individual (if Heaven isn't actually gotchaing people into lantern archons, but yeah sure that seems unlikely). What next step of argument from there?