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?
I think Mill would argue that people ought to have the freedom to put themselves in high risk situations, but can be prevented from taking an action with the intent of ending their life because it would prevent any further possibility of freedom. In the scenario of the mountain climber in the Himalayas, it would be unjust to actively prevent someone from making that journey. It does not harm anyone but the person, and it is not done with the intent of ending their life. It is the governments obligation to provide all the information available, and give warning to the obvious danger of the situation, but the government can’t restrict access to the mountain. It is like the example Mill gives in the book about the damaged bridge: if someone understands the danger of crossing a damaged bridge, they should be allowed to do so. A similar argument can be made for the Jehovah’s witness. They are not denying a blood transfusion to end their life, but there can be a situation where that action might result in their death. The principle of refusing blood transfusions is not for the intent of death, but due to risk it may end up in death. These kinds of actions should not be restricted by the government. However, in the case of Heaven’s Gate suicide it would be just for the government to prevent their suicide. According to Mill, people do not have the freedom to permanently restrict their freedom, because you may eventually change your mind. Someone can work for no money, because eventually they can just ask for money or leave. Someone cannot sell themselves into slavery because it prevents freedom in the future if that person does not want to be in slavery anymore. This idea can be applied to suicide. It may just be in that moment that a person wants to commit suicide, but it does not account for if that person later may want to live. The difference between suicide and highly risky situations is that the intent of suicide is permanent loss of freedom, and risky situations may just end up in loss of freedom. Every action we take has risk, it’s unjust for the government to restrict that risk in the name of our self-interest without our consent.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMill would say that society only has a right to express disapproval of the actions which a group is going to commit. Mill says, "advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people if thought necessary by them for their own good" is the only way people should interfere with others decisions. Mill explains that society can punish people if they hurt (in certain situations) others during their actions. In Mill's opinion, arresting the cult members would not be the correct answer but rather advising and persuading the individual not to go through with committing suicide, and having others avoid the area where the cult members were committing suicide so as to not harm the other people. Mill would not think it was okay to arrest the cult because that doesn't fall under the advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance categories. The state should do all it can to persuade the individual into having the life-saving procedure, but it can't force the person to do it if persuasion fails. Mill believes that unless the action harms others, authorities should only use the four previous tactics as a method of attack. Individuals have a way to permanently restrict their freedom but things change and people realize that permanent decisions are quite literally permanent. The concept of doing something and then later changing your mind is key in society but in cases such as suicide, there is no changing your mind. Once the action is completed there is no going back. In a split second, the person who is committing suicide no longer gets a later chance to back out and decide that's not what they want. Suicide is permanently ending your life, rights, and freedom while climbing a mountain in winter can end up with a temporary loss of rights and freedom. Mill believes that the government should not control the things people choose to do to themselves. As long as it isn’t hurting other people (again, in certain situations), he believes the government should back out.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMill would respond by stating that not everyone arrested since people should be allowed to live the life they want by following their beliefs and living their desired life. Now there is a level of complexity to this statement because it does not take into account the scenario which we are prompted to respond to. I think to make his argument clearer he would state that only those who were leading the cult, and leading the people to commit mass suicide should be arrested. This is because they go against the idea of freedom without harm against others. This means one can do whatever they want unless it negatively affects or harms others (including ones self). The way police officers prevent suicides is not by arresting the individual and sentencing them to jail; they talk with the person. They try to talk them down from making a drastic decision. They approach this scenario with care because they could potential cause someone to perform a final act no one should ever feel they have to perform. In the Heaven's Gate scenario, the only proper way to approach this is easily and steadily. It is essentially a hostage scenario where everyone is holding everyone, including themselves, hostage. By approaching it softly and openly there can be hope to save more than no one. Even if it is only six out of the 39 members decide not to take the poison that is six saved lived that could potentially help others out of cults, and help law enforcement understand different cults better.
ReplyDeleteMill will say that people are allowed to do what they want unless they are not harming others. This brings up some issues in the last example in the prompt with a person wanting to climb high peaks in risky weather and if they should be arrested for doing so. In this case, the person's intentions are not to harm anyone but that can easily change if the person becomes injured and needs a rescue team which would then put others in danger. Also, if someone gets hurt on the rescue team or the person ends up hurting himself on this expedition this would contradict not harming others. Even though the mountain climber did not intend to harm others it happened, so therefore should they face charges? On the other hand, if the police tell a person that they should not climb the peaks and it is too dangerous what gives the police the power to do that because it is the mountain climber's life and a risk that the person is willing to take? Lastly, if the police were to ban the climber from climbing and they climb anyways and make it okay should they face charges for disobeying the authorities but they didn’t do any harm to anyone? This is where the philosophy is to do what you want as long as you don’t harm others can become tricky.
ReplyDeleteThe ideal society is in place to protect the citizens who live within it. This duty comes primarily when a person in the community wishes to harm another. In this case, society should protect the victim from harm. However, the issue becomes muddled once a person only harms themselves. Suicide, for example, only causes direct physical harm to the person committing the act. In the case of self-inflicted harm, should a society’s duty to protect its citizens also come into play, even if that intervention goes against that individual’s interest? The answer lies not on a simple yes or no but a spectrum depending on the situation and starting with the most extreme, suicide. It is for the benefit of society that it prevents one from committing the act of suicide. In his essay On Liberty, John Stuart Mill uses the example of how selling oneself into slavery, even if that person is fully consenting to the action, is not moral. He believes “it is not freedom to be allowed to alienate his freedom” (Mill 101). Suicide, similar to slavery, is a method of alienating oneself from one’s freedom and is thus an act that society should prevent to the best of its ability. It is the ultimate form of alienation since suicide is an act for which there is no return. Through death, all the benefits to a society that a person might bring through their freedom of choice are no longer possible. This logic also ignores that suicide is also an act that hurts the family and friends of the person committing the act. It is also possible that the act can encourage ten more people also to commit suicide, leading to even more significant harm.
ReplyDeleteThe other end of the spectrum relies mainly on intent and experience. When performing a dangerous act, many people do not realize it is extremely dangerous. Mill uses the example of a man crossing a dangerous bridge without his knowledge. Mill believes that authority stepping in to prevent that man from crossing the bridge is not a violation of one’s liberty since “liberty consists of doing what one desires, and he does not desire to fall into the river” (Mill 95). Mill argues that society is correct in intervening where someone is going to, or is performing, a dangerous act that they do not realize is dangerous. However, there are cases where this does not apply. Many people, whether they be tight-rope walkers, mountaineers, or even boxing, or fully aware of their dangerous actions, still go through with the act. In this case, it is not acceptable for society to intervene since the person has full knowledge that the action will result in their harm. The difference between these actions and suicide is that while suicide guarantees harm and death, these actions, with the right experience, can bring no harm at all. With these actions being on a spectrum, there is an issue where people draw the line to what’s acceptable for a society to intervene. Whether a person has full knowledge of what they are doing and the harm it is bringing to them is completely debatable. The murky middle ground presents problems, but having the endpoints allows society to, in time, understand the what, when, and where it should use its force.
Mill’s argument that people should be allowed to put themselves at risk as long as they are the only person in harm’s way applies to the cult issue because the leader was at fault for the harm of the followers. I think Mill would agree with authorities stopping the leader because they continued to preach harmful ideologies and coerced people into harming themselves. This contradicts Mill’s argument because the followers were not at fault for the harm that happened to them, the leader was. Theoretically, however, if the police knew what the cult was planning to do, I do not think Mill would agree that they should be allowed to arrest anyone but the leader. Mill would argue that the leader was harming his followers by pressuring them into mass suicide. In doing this, he harmed people other than just himself. In terms of the followers, I don't think Mill would agree with arresting them because they were only intending to harm themselves. You could compare this to the mountain climber scenario because although the climber is potentially at risk, he is the only person involved and did not pressure anyone into going with him. He made all his own choices when he decided to begin the climb. Furthermore, I do not think Mill would agree with police forcibly stopping him from climbing because he is only potentially harming himself.
ReplyDeleteI think that even if authorities got involved the cult members would find a way around them. This was something important to them and something they thought would have a good impact and or result on them. While the state or government could have involved themselves I think that no matter what they did it would not be enough. We have talked about how suicide prevention is nearly impossible because us humans have the ability to turn around and walk away and continue to do harmful things to ourselves with out other people knowing. Technically speaking in this case, authorities would not have a justified reason to arrest these members. Assuming they had done nothing wrong before, there would be nothing to technically sentence them to. From Mills perspective, he would say that as long as it's not harming others it is okay to pursue these actions. However looking at it from a bigger perspective, should the people influencing this behavior and these actions get in some type of trouble?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the police would have been able to arrest the members of heaven's gate because they were manipulated into believing that they were catching a ride with aliens, which was actually killing themselves. I agree with the idea that people should be able to engage in high risk behavior , such as extreme sports, because they are aware of the consequences of said behavior, and are willingly doing them for their own personal enjoyment and fulfillment. It can be difficult to find the source of ambiguity for people's actions which makes suicide cases complex. However in the case of Heaven's Gate they were indoctrinated into a cult which deprived them of free will, and individual thinking, whether they were aware of it or not. Marshall Applewhite, the creator of heavens gate, had the ultimate say in all cult related activities, and had total control over each individual member. While the members believed they were doing something good, they were not in the right state of mind because they were brainwashed and therefore not consenting and understanding the gravity of the situation, or its consequences. The police would be preventing the mass suicide of innocent people, and would ,in my opinion, be justified doing so.
ReplyDelete