On March 26. 1997 39 members of the Heaven's Gate cult committed suicide in an attempt to catch a ride with a spaceship hiding in the wake of the Hale-Bopp comet. Had authorities known of these plans would they have been justified in arresting the cult members to prevent their deaths? After all, police officers forcibly prevent suicides all the time? What about a Jehovah Witness who refuses a blood transfusion for a life saving operation? Should the state force him or her to have the operation to save her or his life? What about a mountain climber who wants to ascend a dangerous Himalayan mountain peak in the middle of winter? Would authorities be justified in arresting her or him to prevent such a foolhardy ascent? Or do individuals have a right to engage in harmful behavior that is meaningful to them?
According to J.S. Mill because different experiments of living are necessary to maintain people’s liberty and to advance society, individuals do have a right to engage in harmful behavior. Mill says in the third chapter of his book that “...it is the privilege and proper condition of a human being, arrived at the maturity of his faculties, to use and interpret experience in his own way” (55). Mill believes that a person must have the freedom to choose how they want to live their own lives, that this is beneficial not only to themselves but to society as well. He does say that “...when there is not a certainty, but only a danger of mischief...he ought, I conceive, to be only warned of the danger; not forcibly prevented…” (95). When a person may be exposing themselves to danger other people can counsel and inform them of what they are going to do, but cannot stop them. Mill believes that individuals are allowed to directly or not put themselves in harms way without anything obstructing them but that others can inform-and only inform- them about their choice.
ReplyDeleteJ.S. Mill believes that being able to express ourselves individually is essential for social progress; no matter HOW we choose to express ourselves. People should have the freedom to interpret experiences and choose how they want to react. In other words, people must have the freedom to live their lives they want to; as long as danger is not involved. The example about a Jehovah Witness refusing a blood transfusion for a lifesaving operation is an interesting case. I would have to agree with Mill, that the doctors would have to respect that patients wishes. The main reasoning for this is because being a Jehovah Witness is how this patient chooses to express themselves. By forcing an operation that involves a blood transfusion, that freedom of expression would be taken away from them. On top of that, the patient would most likely receive a very negative response from their community. They would probably lose their family, and their spot in the community. Yes, this operation would be saving said patients life. However, being in the Jehovah Witness community probably means even more to them, so they would feel like they lost their life. That being said, once that person leaves the hospital, they could go take their own life. They might not want to exist with someone else's blood inside of them, as it is strongly against their views. That is why the state should not have any say in this decision. They would only view this decision with two options… A. do the operation and the person lives or B. don’t do the operation and the person dies. Obviously looking at it this way the state would never select "B". They would not take personal opinions, religious or even political views into play. Only a practicing Jehovah Witness knows what that would do to them (emotionally) and their community. That being said, I agree that people should have the freedom to live their lives as they please. Not having the operation does not inflict any danger on anybody; especially if that person makes the decision themselves. They might think that the operation would be inflicting harm on themselves and their entire community. This behavior might seem "harmful" to outsiders, but to those in the Jehovah Witness community, having a blood transfusion is engaging in harmful behavior.
ReplyDeleteEveryone has the right to live the life they want as long as it does not hurt anyone outside of themselves. Harm is thought of in many terms but mainly referring to physical pain and or death. It is physically impossible to calculate the emotional pain someone can inflict on a loved one due to how they live their life. The 1997 Heaven’s Gate suicide cult is a perfect example of how people can live their life. It is important to note that everyone involved understood what they were doing and voluntarily did it. All 39 members that took their life believed aliens were behind the Hale-Bopp comet. They were all practicing their beliefs, and the government has no right to stop those trying to carry out their beliefs. This mindset works with many examples like skydiving, mountain climbing, and base-jumping. Every human can do what they want with their life as long as it does not directly interfere with how someone else lives. Someone may experience guilt due to standing by as someone throws their life away doing something reckless. However, while it may seem careless and foolish to a bystander, they do not comprehend its importance to those partaking. Many consider it very brave to die for something they believe in, such as their religion. This same logic makes someone a martyr for his or her belief in free base jumping.
ReplyDeleteJ.S. Mill believes that everyone has the most knowledge about themselves and their own actions, and so should be given the authority to determine their own lives or express their own individuality. This freedom of choice when it comes to a person's life not only benefits that sole person, but according to Mill, it benefits the society as a whole. We can only inform others of their choices and the consequences due them, but the act of choosing them is up to that person. Going to the scenario at hand, if authorities had known that cult members were going to commit suicide, they would have not been justified to stop their deaths according to Mill. In the same regard to a Jehovah Witness refusing a life-saving operation or a dangerous mountain climber climbing the Himalayan mountains in the middle of the winter, they are only justified to inform these people of what their actions may result in and not directly interfere with their actions. I believe that this lack of justification is not always the case and should be argued on a case by case basis. If someone is underage or mentally unfit to make decisions then I believe that it is justified to stop actions that said person does that would be harmful to themselves. You can also argue the possibility of these self-harm cases indirectly causing harm others. For example, ascending a mountain on a dangerous not recommended path could lead to a rockslide harming people below the mountain. This form of thinking case by case does have consequences bringing up the idea of how do you determine who is mentally stable since many people, including me even, would think that the cultists who committed suicide are not mentally stable. Even though it has some flaws, I believe that it is better to have some form of justification where you can interfere with people's actions of self-harm.
ReplyDeleteIn the book On Liberty, John Stuart Mill strongly opposes the idea of paternalism throughout the text. One of Mill's primary beliefs is that the liberty entitled to another human cannot be infringed, unless it poses a threat to others. This idea is known as the harm to self-principle. He maintained his beliefs during chapter 4 while discussing paternalism. Although Mill points out that humans may encourage others to do the right thing, there is a fine line between encouraging and forcing. Mill argues that, "But neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years, that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it" (Mill, 136). What Mill is arguing here is that the wrong of an individual forcing someone to either do or not do something outweighs any wrong that their potential actions could have resulted in. Overall, it is clear that Mill would most likely disagree with the government’s decision to arrest the 39 members of Heaven’s gate because they are not interfering with the harm to self-principle, and arresting those individuals would have been forcing them to do something, which Mill opposes. I believe that Mill presents a case that I find is easier to side with then that of arresting these members. I do believe that suicide does in fact directly affect the lives of other who rely on them, but ultimately, as Mill eludes too, a decision of such magnitude should not be influenced by “another human creature”. In terms of the example of climbing a dangerous mountain, I feel like scaling a mountain should be allowed, but there needs to be some sort of a warning. As for all harmful behavior, I believe a complete warning should be required before being allowed to do such activity. For example, if I were to want to go to Alpine Valley, I couldn’t just walk on the slopes and ski, but rather go in the building, sign up, and sign waivers. During this process, I receive a proper warning that forces me to understand the risk that I am taking. However, if I were to simply walk on a mountain, I may not have access to this sort of necessary warning, which could lead me to not believing or fully comprehending how scaling a mountain is harmful behavior. In conclusion, John Stuart Mill and I share the belief that individuals have the right to engage in dangerous activity that primarily effects themselves. However, I believe that a full understanding of the harmful behavior should be received before being able to partake in it.
ReplyDelete*Page number associated with the in-text citation is from the google book online*
ReplyDeleteMills believes that we are the best candidate for choosing our own future and making our own decisions. However this does come with exceptions when it comes too how others are affected by our choices. For example, the Heavens Gate Suicide cult is something that should have been allowed even if authorities knew about it. Everyone in the cult made the conscious decision without any coercion to take their own life in an attempt to reach a higher form of living. This mass suicide is justified even if many disagree because they were only doing this too themselves. If this cult attempted to force others into joining them then it becomes a problem. The Jehovah Witness question is a sort of dilemma. On one side it goes against the mothers religious rights and her rights to live her life how she wants too and on the other she could potentially kill her unborn child. It comes down to the question of whether or not we believe the unborn child's life matters more than her freedoms. As with the Heavens Gate suicide a climber who wants to ascend the Himalayan mountains in the middle of winter should be allowed too. The climber would only do harm to himself if something bad happened and if they are ok with that then its justified. In the end, any action committed by a person is justified and should be allowed as long as it doesn't do harm to others.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJ.S. Mills believes in the idea that a person's best interest are known only by themselves and nobody can tell them different. As well, if a person is not harming anyone else, then they are their own responsibility and capable in deciding for themselves. The issue is that the government takes away their choice and or responsibility for which they think is for the greater good, but is it really better to take a person's own choice away from them and only doing more harm than good? For an example, scaling el Capitan solo. If a person were to want to climb the dangerous cliff, it should only be in their interest and to their own benefit as long if they are doing no harm to others but then that choice is stripped away from them because authorities believe that it is only for the benefits of protecting the people and they are doing the right thing. To take away what another person's beliefs because somebody else thinks they know the best interests of another person, is wrong. Again, to strip someone of their freedoms and their own choice which apparently I thought is everything that America is supposed to uphold and represent, but I guess not. That is why the government should have no say in what a person can and cannot do if they are not putting another person at risk because it only takes away the a person's own choice and freedom away from them.
ReplyDeleteJ.S. Mill believes that anyone should do what they feel is best for them regardless of whether ot not it will harm those around them, because having bans or restrictions on what you can or cannot do from a higher power, such as a government, would be a danger to liberty. The police would not have been justified in attempting to arrest the cult members because no one was forcibly causing harm to other - it was not a forced or assisted suicide but rather an agreement by all of the members who knew what there were doing. Although it is true that police officers prevent suicides all the time, it is justified because they could potentially be physically or mentally harming others while trying to end their own lives. A Jehovah witness refusing a blood transfusion to save their life should be allowed because although their death may cause mental harm to others, it would be more understandable because the people around them would most likely be aware of the reasoning behind the choice and the preservation of religion. The state should never force people to do an operation if it goes against their own beliefs because it would be a violation on their liberty because they choose to not have the operation and are aware of the consequences and harm it will have to themselves by not having it. A mountain climber who wants to climb a dangerous mountain in the middle of winter should be allowed because again they are aware of the risks and harms that could potentially come with the activity. Therefore, individuals should have a right to engage in harmful behavior if they are aware of all the risks that it might involve and they are sure that it will not cause significant harm to others.
ReplyDeleteIn the book, On Liberty, John Stuart Mill argues that within a society the only way to lose your inherit liberties is by breaking the Harm to Others Principle. As a result, Mill believes that the government should only interfere with peoples’ liberties in order to protect others. Along with this belief, he is strongly against the government enforcing paternalistic laws. However, his opinion has created debates over the question of individuals having the right to participate in harmful behavior that is meaningful to them, such as free soloing a mountain or snowboarding a dangerous backcountry slope. Some people believe that the government should have laws in order to protect people from risking their lives doing dangerous or reckless actions. But the government should not control how people live if they are not endangering others. In cases when the government regulates laws in many aspects of life, it can become too power and controlling over peoples’ lives. According to Mill, he argues that individuality is a core part in living and in order to allow people to accomplish this, people need to be able to have experiments in living. Mill states, “As it is useful that while mankind are imperfect there should be different opinions, so is it that there should be different experiments of living; that free scope should be given to varieties of character, short of injury to others;”(54). When the government is creates laws on paternalism, they are hindering the ability for people to have different experiments in living. Although a rock climber decides to climb a cliff without ropes, which would endanger their life, it is still their decision and should not be controlled by a government. Along with the idea of government’s place in paternalistic laws, Mill also states, “He is the person most interested in his own well-being… the interest which society has in him individually is fractional and altogether indirect, while with respect to his own feelings and circumstances the most ordinary man or woman has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by anyone else"(74). Because people should strive to be themselves and make their own decisions, people are the best judges of themselves. Therefore, if someone wants to pursue dangerous or risky behavior they deserve the right to do so.
ReplyDeleteStone Zashin
ReplyDeleteAccording to J.S Mill, everyone has the right to live their life period. Whether that is one where you take many risks that people perceive to be stupid and dangerous or whether you would rather live the Safeway. A prime example of how this comes in real life is a DNR, short for Do not resuscitate. In the everyday world, patients can choose to sign a DNR saying they 'die' they want it to be over. Ethically speaking, DNRs are a heavily debated topic as the examples of mass suicide and denial of the blood transfusion would be. People have the freedom to exercise religion, and if one religion, such as the Heaven's Gate cult, says that it is ethical and only right to commit suicide, we can not intrude on this action. When an effort physically hurts people who are not involved, it is not allowed and shouldn't be. Who are we to tell people what they can't do just because it might emotionally upset people. Mill believes that people have a right to make their own decisions based on their trains of thought. I can't entirely agree with him, but I can provide an exception. If a clinically insane person wants to harm themselves, let's say because they are off their medication, I think people should step in the way. Sometimes people believe that there is nothing left to live for, and as much as it may hurt us to see them go, it's not our choice or business.
People are allowed to be involved in actions that can result in Harm to Self since we live in a free country. Every single day we are risking our lives, so why should we try and control a group of people who believe that they are suppose to die in order to make it to Heaven? When it comes down to the technicalities, there is a difference between wanting to kill yourself in order to be redeemed and go to heaven and being coerced. The Heaven’s Gate cult probably had the wrong intentions and did not tell the whole truth to the members, but who are we to judge and prevent people from doing the things they believe in. The government should not intervene in matters that have to do with religion, beliefs, or a principle that is not considered “ethical” or “moral”. Morality and ethics are different for everyone, especially when it comes to religion, Jehovah’s witnesses do not accept blood transfusion while in the hospital, when it could be used to save the patients’ life. This is not only a person’s right to freedom of religion but it also denying them of how they wish to live their life. Harm to Self is an action that the government should take into consideration, but there is also another part of Harm to Self that needs to be addressed; everyone deserves the right to make their own choices without worrying about being put into jail for following their beliefs.
ReplyDelete