Friday, February 21, 2020
Hitch Your Wagon to a Star?
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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhile I mostly agree with Mill's general premise that the government should not interfere with the actions of individuals if the result is only self harm and not harm to others, I don't believe this maxim should be universal and have a few exceptions in which the government is justified to interfere. First is if the individual in question is clearly acting irrationally. In the case of the Heaven's gate cult, where the member's beliefs were clearly incorrect in the face of all science and reason, the government is totally justified in preventing the deaths of these individuals through arrests. Mill's advocated solution of letting public discourse allow the cult members to realize the truth that alien spaceship suicide isn't feasible would be ineffective, as it would take way too long to work and the cult members had likely embraced their ideology too strongly for discussion to dissuade them. Therefore, the only way to stop these actors from making a choice they would regret if they were thinking rationally is through government interference. On net, saving the lives of dozens is much better for society than respecting the views of a clearly insane religion. In the second example with Jehovah's witnesses, I do not believe the government is justified in forcing a patient to get a blood transplant, as the individual is rational and aware of the consequences of his actions. The Witness makes the choice that respecting his tenants and beliefs is more important than getting a transplant, and as long as they fully understand the implications of their choice and are acting rationally, the government has no right to say if their religious beliefs are more important than the quality of their medical treatment. In this case, I agree with Mill's analysis that rational individuals know what's best for them more than the government does, and therefore should be left to make their own choice in this scenario. If an individual is capable of making an informed cost benefit analysis and believes their experience will be more meaningful if they inflict harm on themselves, they should be able to do it. The third example of a mountain climber brings up what I believe to be the second exception to the rule. In my opinion, governments should be able to prevent individuals from harming themselves using government property. Technically, all mountains are government controlled (US mountains are a part of national parks in the US, and the Nepalese government controls access to Mount Everest). Since government property is designed for the use of the people to promote their well-being, the government has every right to determine if their property is safe to use, and can therefore prevent people from using mountains if it is too dangerous. If the sole purpose of government property is to help the people, and the government controls all of its property, it should be able to do whatever it wishes to ensure its property promotes wellbeing. For example, the Nepalese government only allows climbers to use certain routes on Everest to promote safety, and using a different route would pervert the government's intention to help the people and causes unnecessary danger, and definitely should be banned.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mill's beliefs that, generally, people should be allowed to do what they please as long as it doesn't harm others. In these circumstances, I definitely believe that. People have a right to life, but they should be allowed to give up that right if that is what they want. I think that the government can provide services to help people out of these situations if they wish to, including counseling; however, I don't believe that it is under their jurisdiction to force someone to continue living against their will. Additionally, in the case of the Jehova's Witness, the government absolutely should not be able to force the person to undergo surgery because that is forcing him to change or ignore his beliefs, which violates their right to freedom of religion. In the case of the cult, I think that the government also should not be allowed to step in, unless they have evidence of it harming people who cannot consent to their death, including children. Additionally, if the government had stepped in in this situation, it would also limit the cult members' experiments in living. Although now we highly believe that their beliefs were flawed, if they had not pursued their belief, then society would have no idea of the truth. Society could have missed out on the discovery of life on other planets. Although it did not work out in this case, if the government were to step in on matters like these, there is a high likelihood that society would miss out on a lot of discoveries.
ReplyDeleteIn general, I agree with Mill’s principle of self-harm and harm to others, although I think that in certain circumstances there has to be an exception. Mill states that people are the best judges of themselves, and I agree with this statement. I believe that each individual should have their own rights for their life for the sole reason that it is theirs to live or end. Even though examples of the Heaven’s Gate cult are tragic and unfortunate instances of death, it would be wrong to suppress their opinions and beliefs even though they may be wrong. If this happened, we would lose the knowledge the cult had and any part of their belief system that was actually true. As Mill states, when different and possibly wrong opinions are suppressed, society can lose the parts that are true and would only further the idea that humans are infallible, which is detrimental. The government would not have been justified for arresting the cult members for endangering their own life, but they could argue that one person strongly influenced the others and forced them to commit suicide. If this was the case, the government is justified in intervening because then the individual who is committing suicide is not actually having an opinion in their death. People should have their right to endanger their life if that is what they care about, but once it crosses the line of harming another person, then the government should try to limit it in some way. I think it is wrong that police forcefully intervene in a suicide unless it is for someone underage or an individual is doing the action in a public place or with a loss of rationale. For example, you could argue that committing suicide will have a detrimental effect on others and mentally harm them, but the argument that self-judgement and regulation is stronger than the concerns of others is important to recognize in this situation. It is important that individuals have their own right to life, including the justifications and abilities to live it normally or recklessly, or ending it if they please.
ReplyDeleteIn influencing purely social aspects of a society, the government should only have the right to infringe on the liberty of an individual if, in preforming that liberty, the person is putting others in harm’s way without their understanding and explicit consent (determined by the effected person). When the Heaven’s Gate cult committed suicide on March 26, 1997, authorities would have only been justified in arresting any of the members if they were endangering others without their understanding and explicit consent. One’s proper understanding could be impaired if they were brainwashed in any way, but only the influencer would be arrested (on charges of putting the other person in harms way without their understanding or explicit consent), not the influenced. If at any point the impaired individual were to denounce the claims of brainwashing, the authorities would have no right to arrest any directly involved individual on accounts directly related to the case. A second case that government’s power to affect an individual’s liberty is restricted with a Jehovah witness who refuses a blood transfusion to save his/her life. If the person expressed explicit consent (to refuse the transfusion) the government has no right infringe on that persons liberty, because they are not putting any other person in harm’s way. In a third case of a mountain climber ascending a dangerous peak in the middle of winter, if the person was not putting any other person in harms way with their climb, the government could not rightfully stop them.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDworkin and Mill both offer differing perspectives on Paternalism. Mill claims that each person is their own, and should be in charge of making these decisions, even if they must deal with negative repercussions. Therefore, attempts to judge on behalf of others will have worse consequences than letting people judge for themselves. In contrast, Dworkin believes that sometimes there are circumstances in which government intervention is justified, examples being irrational thinking and psychological pressure. Though I agree with the notion of limited government intervention in individual decisions, in the case of the Heaven's Gate Cult, it seems as though there is a skewed sense of reality, irrational thinking, and possibly psychological pressure from other members of the group. The decision is backed by illogical beliefs, and nothing good will come about a mass suicide. Mill argues that by suppressing beliefs, we may miss out on key aspects or truths that arise from differing opinions. However, it is likely that members of the cult have only been limited to one perspective on the afterlife, and have lacked proper education about the world through a scientific lens. I feel as though they do not have a strong understanding of the impact their decision making will have. Therefore government is justified in taking action to prevent this, as long as it does not physically harm the cult members. In contrast, the case of a Jehovah Witnesses refusing blood transfusions is justified, as they are backed by rational thinking and religious justification. In this case, I agree with Mill that the government is not justified to intervene, as it is a personal decision. Patients are well informed of the impact of not receiving blood transfusions, and is it in their right to make decisions based on religious beliefs. I agree with Mills argument that these individuals are much more aware of their situations, as well as what may be the best decisions for them in these situations. They are the best equipped to make their own decisions. By intervening the government is restricting religious liberation in forcing patients to go against moral beliefs. I agree with Dworkin's viewpoint being that paternalism is justified in certain situations, especially when the individuals are thinking irrationally.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of paternalistic laws and paternalism, I generally agree with Mill. As long as people are not harming others, they should have a right to dangerous or suicidal activities. The government should have the right to provide help in situations such as these but should never have the right to outright prevent them. The only person who knows exactly what is right for another person is themselves. Mill generally argues that freedom should be allowed in cases where it does not harm others. For instance, j-walking itself is not harmful, but when you j-walk down a highway for instance, you are endangering drivers who could potentially hit you and harm themselves. As long as the act of causing self-harm or suicide does not harm others such as again, killing oneself by jumping into a highway, it should be allowed. In some of the examples given, it is also a matter of freedom of belief. The Jehovah Witness is exercising their belief to keep their blood pure, so they should not be barred even if it results in their death. One contradiction to my argument may be that there are cases where people are not thinking in their right mind or are not necessarily considering what is best for themselves. For example, people who commit suicide usually do it in the spur of the moment. Given time to reflect, they may change their decision. While most would agree that in situations like these it would be just for the government to step in and save a life, I do not think this should be a general law. Everyone has their own different circumstances. If we made suicide illegal based off the fact that most people do not actually want to kill themselves, we would be taking away freedom from the people who whole heartedly do. Under this premise, I think that we should stay away from paternalistic laws. Some people may want them, but not everyone will. At the end of the day, paternalistic principles can be guidelines, but should never be stern laws.
ReplyDeleteI agree for the most part with Mill's idea that the government should not interfere with actions that cause self-harm and not harm to others, I believe there are certain cases where Mill is wrong. In the case of the Cult members, I believe the government should have stepped in and stop them because while their actions were not hurting anyone other than themselves, a line needs to be drawn where the government can step in. I believe cases where the people involved are not thinking rationally, as they weren't in the cult, is one case where the government can step in. Since the people are clearly not capable of thinking and making decisions for themselves the government should make those decisions. While Mill believes that the community would realize the cult's ideals were incorrect and irrational. However, it would take time for people to realize what was happening with the Heaven's Gate Cult and it would likely be difficult to dissuade them from their beliefs just like how its difficult to dissuade anyone from their religious beliefs. In the case of the Jehovah Witness I believe the government is not justified in forcing them to have a blood transplant. The Jehovah Witness is capable of understanding what they would be doing and the possible consequences. Since they can think for themselves there is no need for the government to intervene. As long as the person has a complete understanding of why they are making their decision and how it is going to affect other people then the government has no right to stop them. In the instance of the mountain climber, since the mountain is probably on government property or in a national park which is also government property, it is the right and responsibility of the government to make sure that space is being used responsibly and for the overall well-being of those using it. Therefore, the government would be justified in stopping the person from climbing the mountain since it will maintain the general safety of the climber and everyone in the park.
ReplyDeleteI absolutely disagree with Mill's position on the interference on self-harm. My main qualm with the harm to self vrs harm to others principle is that any harm to yourself inherently will harm others in the end. The harm to others principle contradicts itself because if we encourage a society of drug abuse, prostitution, and food over-indulgence we actually decrease the moral character of our society thus causing harm to others in the process. When it comes to things like self-harm I think a far superior method to use is weighing the harms of the rights violations versus the actual actions. I think a crucial mistake many liberal philosophers make is that they assume rights are in of themselves an inherently virtuous thing. However a right is just a vehicle to achieve higher virtue, it is not a virtue in of itself. That is why you are not allowed to yell bomb in an airport even though technically that is a violation of the first amendment. Self-harm should be treated the same way. We must weight between the harm of taking a right away and the harm of actually excercising the right. In the case of the mass-suicides absolutely their right to kill themselves en masse should be taken away. We don't even allow one person to jump off a bridge much less 30 people. The intense suffering caused by these people when they commit suicide far outweighs the pain of them not being able to exercise their "religion". Only in certain cases should we restrict the government's reach over our self-harm. Like if you want to eat a hamburger I think it is fair to say the harm caused by the government outlawing the eating of hamburgers far outweighs the harm of eating a hamburger. But, at the end of the day, the government exists to promote virtue in society, not just for the collective but for each individual as well. If we want to say that our goal is to create the best and most virtuous society we can than the government absolutely has a role in restricting liberty for the sake of virtue.
ReplyDeleteMostly in accordance with Mill’s principle of self-harm and harm to others, the government should not endorse paternalism, but only to an extent. Mill argues that people understand themselves better than others, which means they know what is best for themselves. The government therefore shouldn't interfere since they do not know what is best for each specific person. Unless a person is causing harm to others as a result of their actions, the government should not interfere either. For example, if someone is going through a rough phase in their life, if the only way they know how to cope is through an excessive binge of alcohol, no one is stopping them from going to a bar and ordering 10 margaritas. Even though alcohol is a toxin that can ruin a person's kidneys, the government should not have the right to step in and stop him from drinking. However, if you start beating up the bartender after your drink, it is fair to say that the cops can come and stop you. The next question is that if each individual is pursuing something that is meaningful, even it if is detrimental to themselves, should the government stop them? I believe this should be judged more on a case by case scenario. However, unless in extreme cases, the government shouldn't have the power to stop someone from pursuing self-destructive behaviors. For example, someone is believes that video games are meaningful, and they decide abandon their basic needs in pursuit of finding meaning, the government shouldn't have the right to break into their house and force them to shower. In a slightly more extreme scenario, should a Jehovah Witness be forced to have a blood transfusion for a life saving operation? In this case, the government does not have the right to force them to have the operation if the Jehovah Witness is in a rational state of mind and decides not to. But if the Jehovah Witness is unconscious, but the doctors know that blood transfusions are probably against their morals, they should do the transfusion since the Jehovah Witness is not in the state of mind to determine what is happiest for themselves.Lastly, in the more extreme cases such as mass suicide, if the government had known about it, they should have the right to stop them. The participants in the mass suicide were probably under the influence of the cult leader and not in their rational mindset, so they are not able to rationally determine what makes them happiest. Especially according to research, most survivors of suicides actually regret trying to die, since their decisions were made at the spur of the moment. Though it is really hard to determine the bright line of what the government should or shouldn't do, according to Mill, Paternalism caps a person's decisions to be happy, therefore it should not be endorsed.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Mill's assertion that the government cannot interfere with a person's actions if they only pose a risk to themselves. The government has a responsibility to look after the wellbeing of its citizens even if in some cases it means restricting their liberty. When restricting individual liberty the legal concept of strict scrutiny should be utilized. Strict scrutiny details that Individual liberty can be limited in cases where the government has a compelling interest to protect, and that the law in question is not overly broad and restricts liberty in as minimal a way as possible. In the case of the Heaven's Gate cult, the government has a compelling interest to protect its citizens from committing suicide. While the members of the cult should not receive criminal charges they should be able to be detained as they pose a severe risk to themselves. Mill would contend that since the cultists were only harming themselves, the government would have no authority to stop them. I disagree with this notion, as suicide would have an impact on their family members as well as a mass suicide would have an emotional impact on society. In the case with Jehovah's witnesses refusing blood transplants, Mill would say that it is their right to refuse a transfusion, arguing that only they know what is in their best interest and that they are not harming anyone else. I would agree with this notion that a person has the right to deny medical treatment so long as that individual is of legal age. While in this scenario, they likely are incorrect in regards to what is in their best interest, the government should not be able to force medical treatment. Finally, in the scenario of a mountain climber ascending a Himalayan mountain in the middle of winter, Mill would assert that the government could not restrict their actions. I disagree with Mill in this regard as the mountain is likely on government property, so the government would have the right to limit a person's movement, similar to how people are not allowed to swim in beaches when a lifeguard is not on duty. Furthermore, the person's actions may harm others as if they potentially run into an issue, rescuers may be at risk to the harsh elements. Overall, the government should have the ability to limit some individual liberties of a person if they pose a significant risk to themselves.
ReplyDelete