Friday, February 22, 2019
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)
I believe that if the authorities had known about the cult meeting, the cult would not even get as far as to preparing to commit suicide for such a cause, as they would all be given help or arrested, most likely the former. It was clear that the members of the Heaven's Gate cult were brainwashed into believing the claim of an alien spacecraft behind the comet through continuous . In "On Liberty", John Stuart Mill talks about the importance of not overly suppressing the truth, as well as the need of the "Harm to Others Act". Mill claims that anyone can do anything as long as they do not bring on harm to themselves or anyone else. With that in mind, what the cult leaders had done by hypnotizing their members and all committing suicide, they had violated this proposed rule and deserved to be punished. However, another argument is that they were expressing their right of freedom of speech by saying what they believed is true, and as Mill argues, we do not know the truth until we have explored every possible outcome. But rather than continuing upon what Mill believes is right, it is important to garner my opinion on the issue. I believe that if someone wishes to instill harm upon THEMSELVES, if it is to not clearly be able to kill them, and they are not endangering others, they should be allowed. Specifically for the the Jehovah Witness, if they are forced to donate blood, they would save a life, but the opposite end would need to be ready to face the repercussions. However, if the Jehovah's Witness does not donate blood, they may also have to face repercussions. Like Mill had said, we are entitled to our own individuality and actions. The Jehovah's Witness issue is more pressing than the mountain climber, as the former has a different human life at stake. If the mountain climber chooses to risk his life for a mission that they and those close to them believe is noble, they should be allowed to do it, so long it does not put other lives at risk. Authorities should not be justified in arresting the climber, but rather, as with many other things, they should sign a waiver that shows that they know the risks. One thing I had connected this to was an Amazonian tribe that performs a special ceremony for the boys who come of age. They put their hands in special gloves filled with bullet ants - the insect with the most painful sting in the world. They do this not once, but 20 times for 10 minutes each. It is very possible that they could pass out or even die from the pain, but they do it because it is something that they and their families believe in. Another traditional ceremony in South America that I had seen a documentary about is homemade bungee jumping, another coming-of-age ceremony. This being much more dangerous, the same mentality of culture applies. This being said, conclusively and restating the past statements I had made, individuals do have a right to engage in harmful behavior that is meaningful to them, so long as they and their families agree to it and they are not harming any lives.
ReplyDeleteAccording to John Stuart Mill, citizens should not be prohibited to harm themselves. He argues that freedom is an essential part of our society and it should not be limited if possible. Mill draws the line of freedom when there is the possibility that others are harmed. However, he explains that harm to oneself should be allowed, as it is ones freedom to do so and nobody else is harmed. Applying this logic to the given cases, authorities should not have stopped their suicides, even if they knew they were about to happen. The police officers preventing suicides technically limit a person's freedom. The only case when intervening is justified is when another person's life is endangered. If the spaceship's maneuverability would be affected by the cult members, authorities would have to stop them.
ReplyDeleteMil adds, that people should still be warned about the danger of their action. If authorities talked to the citizens and explained why they should not undertake a certain action, then they fulfilled their job. If they still insist on doing it, there is no need to stop them.
I partially agree with Mill on the fact that a person's freedom should not be limited unless others could be harmed. However, I want to emphasize the need to inform other about their action. It is necessary for people to understand what they are doing before they are allowed to do it. A mentally disabled person should be assessed and it should be determined if they are able to comprehend the risk lying in their actions. In my opinion, the authorities have to make sure that people are aware of the risk they impose on themselves.
I, like John Stuart Mill, believe that adults who are developed have the right to take part in activities or actions that can lead to self harm so long as it does not endanger another human being. As a result I must take that stance that the law and authorities should not have attempted to stop the cult in their desire to kill themselves. This is a freedom that must remain untouched is society is still to remain free according to Mill. Moving forward I also believe that if a Jehovah's witness is over the age of 18, and considered an adult. That their right to not receive a blood transfusion should be respected. If they are not putting others in harms way, then it must be respected.
ReplyDeleteIn addition. According to Mill, a person should be informed of their perceived wrongdoing in killing themselves. If a abusing drugs was known to kill oneself, a person should at least be educated about how using drugs is harmful before they are allowed to proceed in using it. This would cover any situation in which a person who unknowingly causing harm to oneself. This also removes the guilt from those who watch because then they at least educated the person who is killing them self.
I also believe that if a person is harming themselves purposely under rational circumtsance (person is a sane adult with no disabilities), society has no obligation to save them. If a mountain climber agreed to climb a dangerous mountain and accepted the risk. The rest of us have no responsibility to save them should they place themselves in danger during the ascent. this is because according to mill, a persons actions should not place other sin harms way. A rescue may be dangerous, and no one should be forced to save a person who knowingly laced themselves in harms way according to Mill, it is the other side of the same coin. This means that any and all actions are ultimately educated on both sides, as well as consensual from both points of view. No one is FORCED into a dangerous situation knowingly or unknowingly.
Those who volunteer to save others who desire help in even after accepting the possible consequences of their actions in the face of danger do so at their own peril then, and are considered heroes because of the fact that it is not their "job". They have no incentive to save someone other than that fact it gives them satisfaction. They are not saving someone in harms way, they would be saving someone who has already accepted the consequences of their actions and realized the danger their are in. As a result, a person in that danger would have already been educated about their circumstances, should they want their fate changed by others, their souls is a t the mercy of those who volunteer to save them.
There is no “cure-all” solution to these questions of Liberty. In fact, Mill acknowledges that every situation is different, and even his principles must start as a “basis of discussion” (93). Fittingly, therefore, it would be prudent to break down each of these situations individually. Using Mill’s general principles of individual vs. societal liberty, it would seem that the right thing to do would be to permit the mass suicide of the Heaven’s Gate Cult because they were not harming anyone but themselves, especially because the liberty of the individual extends to a group of individuals with the same mindset (101). However, I disagree with this. In fact, Mill’s own argument gives evidence for why the mass suicide should have been prevented if possible. In establishing, as is true in the justice system today, that suicide is a crime, and realizing that there is the possibility that some of the members of the cult did not want to end their lives, we can arrive at two further premises. First, according to Mill, a person cannot stand idle while they watch someone evidently preparing to commit a crime and may take action to stop it (95). Second, the suppression of perspectives, especially those contrary to the majority, must not be silenced (16). Therefore, we have no right to assume that every member of the cult is willingly committing suicide and every right to stop the suicide from happening.
ReplyDeleteThe other two hypotheticals are a little bit simpler than the first, and I believe that an analysis of Mill’s arguments can easily prove them true. A Jehovah’s witness who refuses a blood transfusion has every right to do so because the only harm will be to himself, and because he is not committing a crime, only refraining from action, society cannot act beyond dissuasion from refusing the procedure (98). The same principle can be applied to a foolhardy mountain climber. The only thing that other people can do to discourage the stupidity of scaling Mount Everest in the winter is to post signs and advocate against it. They cannot, however, arrest nor prevent the climber from going. This right is furthered by Mill’s claim that “an individual, in pursuing a legitimate object, necessarily and therefore legitimately causes pain or loss to others” (93). Because the goal of climbing Everest is a very legitimate goal for this person, even if their near certain death would cause grief/trauma to the people close to them, they still have the right to pursue their dreams.
In analyzing these situations, it is clear to see that life is not always going to fit into an easy to judge mold. But in analyzing these moments with Mill’s principles of Liberty in mind, we can understand at least one way to approach these problems.
With his “harm to others principle,” John Stuart Mill argues that adults deserve the freedom to act as they please as long as they do not harm another person. By this principle, authorities would not be justified in arresting the Heaven’s Gate cult members before committing suicide. If the authorities were to intervene, by Mill’s logic, they would be infringing on the essential liberty of the human people that is to have the ability to choose. Because the ability to choose makes people human, authorities would be taking away part of the cult members’ humanity. I agree with Mill’s ideas regarding the authorities’ involvement and the “harm to others principle;” however, the members of the cult were clearly brainwashed into believing that their suicide would provide them with the opportunity to catch a ride with a spaceship hiding in the wake of a the Hale-Bopp comet. I believe that the leaders of the cult who brainwashed the members into believing this violated the “harm to others principle” and did harm the members by encouraging them to commit suicide. The authorities would be stopping the cult members from acting as they please because their actions are the ones that harm others. This would be enough justification in my mind for the authorities to stop the suicides if they knew of the plans in time. Weighing the two arguments, I believe that the authorities WOULD be justified. The reasoning behind not getting involved and allowing the members to act as they please makes sense, but because the cult leaders were inflicting harm to others, they deserved to be arrested by the authorities.
ReplyDeleteHad the mass suicide by the Heaven's Gate cult been prevented , many lives would have been saved and the police officers who prevented the deaths would be seen as justifiable heroes to the average person. However, it is John Stuart Mill's beliefs that adults have the right to cause themselves harm without interference. By infringing upon the liberty of the people to make their own decisions than Mill's principles have been violated.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do not believe that the people of the Heaven's Gate cult were making their own decisions. While they did indeed kill themselves, it is clear that the followers of the cult were brainwashed into believing that their suicide would transport them to a spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp comet. Rather, Marshall Applewhite, the leader of the Heaven's Gate Cult would be the one who violated Mill's principles as he brought harms to others, not just himself.
I believe that Mill's principles need to be expanded upon, as when someone is clearly no longer capable of making their own choices, than authority figures are completely justified to step in. As Mill allows for children to be an exception, those whose mines have been made usless should also be protected.
I believe that individuals have the right to engage in harmful behavior on the basis of maintaining freedom of opinion. We can all agree that such actions as the Heaven’s Gate cult are ridiculous. By no means necessary am I saying that we should promote such behavior. However, we have merely an interpretation of the truth. Our interpretation happens to be supported by rational, science, common belief and society. Still, it is not in our power to suppress the opinions of others. In J.S. Mill’s “On Liberty”, he finds that suppressing the truth is an evil. He writes on page 19, “To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility.” What he is saying is that we cannot silence opinions that are presumed to be false because that assumes that we have absolute certainty, which he previously explained is impossible. Thus, if we were to suppress a false opinion and it turned out to be true, we would be living with a false understanding of reality. To apply this to the previous example of the Heaven’s Gate cult, no matter how ridiculous this group suicide sounds, we cannot say with 100% certainty that their rational is invalid. Although I would contest that the harms outweigh the benefits, in the frame of promoting discussion and an understanding of true ideas, allowing individuals a right to engage in harmful behavior is an obligation.
ReplyDeleteAccording to John Stewart Mill, all adults who have developed the ability to think and act on their own should have the freedom to harm themselves so long as it does not harm another person. While at face value, this issue surrounding Heaven’s Gate would seem to not violate this rule, I think that it does because of the actions of the cult leaders in convincing and essentially tricking others into committing suicide. This does in fact violate Mill’s rule about harming others because those people would not have committed suicide had they not been brainwashed into a cult and convinced of radical ideas that involved self-harm. Even though I do not think that the police would follow the same line of logic as Mill would in finding a reason to prevent this situation, it would still be stopped because of the mass self-harm that would have been caused from the event. On the other hand, in the case of a Jehovah Witness refusing a blood transfusion and suffering the consequences and a mountain climber ascending a dangerous mountain, authorities would not be justified in preventing the actions of these people and I think that Mill would agree as long as the actions of these people did not harm others. Mill states that, “…the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” (Mill, 9). This means that if the conditions are met that the individual in question chooses to harm themselves of their own accord and they don’t harm anyone else that it should be allowed to preserve that person’s freedom. This is very different from the Heaven’s Gate situation because of the fact that those who harmed themselves were influenced into doing so by others; however, I think that many of these self-harming actions would be stopped anyways even though Mill would argue that they should not be.
ReplyDeleteThroughout "On Liberty", John Stewart Mill states that people should be able to freely express their individuality, and that no one's opinion should be restricted. That said, in the case of the Heaven's Gate cult, this is a circumstance in which the members were brainwashed to believe that they had to kill themselves in order to reach heaven. They were not truly in charge of their own actions when they made the decision to kill themselves. In this example, if authorities had known about the plans for a mass-suicide before it happened, they would have had every right to step in, under Mill's teachings, as they were under the influence of the cult leader, and not in charge of their own actions. Since, the people in the Heaven's Gate cult were brainwashed, they should have been given therapy afterwards, and not be jailed; however, Marshall Applewhite and Bonnie Nettles should have been arrested, as they were the leaders of the cult who pushed their members to commit suicide. However, in the case of the Jehovah's Witness and the mountain climber, their situations should be categorized differently than the cult members. John Stewart Mill states that people should be able to freely choose what they want for themselves, as long as they are not harming others. Under this theory, the Jehovah's Witness has made a conscious decision to join this religion, and choose death over forsaking his beliefs. To force him to go through the procedure would violate his religious freedom, and the freedom of expression that John Mills teaches. Furthermore, in the case of the mountain climber, he too, is following what he wants to do, consciously knowing the risks he faces through his actions. Through Mills teachings, he has every right to do what activities he wants, without someone else being able to hinder them, as he will not hurt anyone else if he dies trying to climb the mountain.
ReplyDeleteJohn Stuart Mill believes that people should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t cause harm to others. He says, “Genius can only breathe freely in an atmosphere of freedom” (62), meaning that we shouldn’t suppress the freedoms of people, unless they harm others. Using this logic, it might make sense that people should be able to commit suicide and refuse blood transfusion. However, this definitely harms the families and relatives of the people close to the person committing suicide. I think the government should try to stop these people, due to the potential harm to people close to them, however it’s also important to not suppress new ideas. Mill writes that if we were to suppress individual freedoms and not let people try new things, society would never advance. That means we should let people try new things, in order for genius to be encouraged. However, I think there’s a limit to this argument, and if an action is clearly unproductive (like committing suicide), we shouldn’t allow it.
ReplyDeleteThe other argument you can make against Heaven’s Gate is that since it was a cult, the leader was actually harming others by spreading a message that led people to commit suicide. However, restricting what the leader says is restricting free speech, and since it’s not hate speech and is just someone professing their beliefs, it makes sense we should allow it. However, Mill would say that since that speech led to other harming themselves, we should restrict that speech since it’s similar to hate speech. I think it’s important to restrict harmful speech that could lead to terrible consequences like suicide but be very careful when restricting that speech. It could set a precedent of restricting speech and snowball out of control. Overall, I’d say that we should limit some actions that are clearly unproductive to society, although it’s hard to determine what is unproductive. That’s why this is such a hard philosophical question. In my mind, committing suicide for no medical reason is unproductive to society and should not be allowed. I also think we should allow most speech, unless it’s hate speech or harmful speech that could lead to worse consequences.
I agree with Mill that adults have the right to make their own decisions and engage in behaviors that may be harmful as long as they aren't hurting any other beings. By thinking this way, the authorities arresting the adults involved in the Heaven's Gate suicide pact would not have been justified. However, it is very possible that the leaders of the Heaven's Gate cult brainwashed and convinced the other members of their beliefs. Therefore, the leaders of the cult were causing harm to the members by convincing them to kill themselves. Thus violating Mill's principals, and making it acceptable for authorities to arrest them. I believe though that authorities interfering in the Heaven’s Gate cult would be acceptable, because I don’t think that the members were fully aware of what they were doing. When mentioning the mountain climber, I don’t think that there is anything authorities or anyone can do except to make the climber aware of all the risks and how dangerous their climb is. Once someone has made up their mind about something they are passionate about, it is very hard to persuade them to do otherwise. As long as they are not being forced to do these dangerous tasks, Mill says that we should not stop them.
ReplyDeleteIt's not the role of the state to dictate how much I should value my own life. By Mill’s property of the Harm to Others principle, it follows that the individual is sovereign over his or her body and everything that person does to his or her self, so long as it doesn’t harm others, ought to be allowed by the state. Stating a principle isn’t sufficient to defend a position, so let’s get into some of the justification. I count three arguments Mill would make that I agree with, and the first is that each individual is in a better position to judge what actions he or she should take than some government bureaucracy. This argument is a fairly simple one, since the only person who knows the most about a certain individual, and thus best suited to make decisions on behalf of said individual, is that very same individual. I know the most about me, so I’m best suited to make educated decisions about myself. Secondly, I certainly care more about myself than some government thousands of miles away. Each individual has more personal stake in themselves than the government ever could, and consequently cares more about ensuring positive outcomes for themselves than the government. Since positive outcomes is what we’re after when deciding such policy, it follows that individuals should have control over their actions instead of the government. The third argument goes as follows: Governments are comprised of people, people are fallible, thus governments are fallible. The reason this is an affirmative argument for individual sovereignty is because since the state is fallible, it doesn’t make sense to give the state the immense power to override decisions my decisions over my own body. The government saying I can’t commit suicide today could turn into her not being able to get an abortion tomorrow, which I think is a violation of her rights over her own body. Even if we are to say that governments are less fallible then individuals are, the fact of the matter is that the other two arguments more than compensate for this. The risk of allowing the government to decide what is too unsafe for individuals to partake in is too great, and the cost, given that individuals have their own interest and mind and know their situations better than the government, is minimal. Thus the government ought not restrict what individuals do to themselves or risk doing to themselves.
ReplyDeleteIn present-day America, the cases of the Heaven’s Gate cult, the Jehovah Witness in need of a blood transfusion, and the risk-taking mountain climber would be subject to interference by officials or authorities. Mill would disagree with any action being taken based on his belief in the Harm to Self Principle. He writes, “The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant” (9). In this quotation, Mill is stating that a person cannot be apprehended or prevented from performing an action unless it poses a threat or has the potential to affect others in a negative way. The only exceptions to this principle are children and those suffering from ailments and disabilities. This principle can be applied to all of the cases mentioned above, including the Heaven’s Gate cult in which all of the members were adults. One could argue that the patient in need of a blood transfusion is ill and, therefore, suffers from an ailment. I believe Mill would not consider this person to be disabled, as there is no evidence in the example given above that suggests the patient is not mentally sound or able to make their own medical decisions. While all of the cases discussed in this paragraph only cause physical harm to the person or group in question, it is important to consider the harm that will come as a result of these deaths (or potential deaths). Family members, close friends, or those who hear news of the death(s) may face emotional or psychological harm. Despite the potential for the occurrence of this non-physical type of harm, I believe that Mill would still allow the people involved in these cases to do as they please. This is based on the idea that many people handle pain differently, and there is no guarantee that a person will be psychologically or emotionally harmed by the actions of another.
ReplyDeleteIn On Liberty, John Stuart Mill continuously expresses that people should have the right to act on their own, without any restrictions, so long as their actions do not harm others. On the surface this seems like a strong argument. If me smoking weed in my basement doesn’t harm anyone else then why shouldn’t I be allowed (not a real example by the way). The only problem is even something as seemingly unimportant as smoking alone in a basement can actually harm others. Let’s say that I were to partake in this activity before school, and then when working with my peers during classes I am unable to adequately do my part of the project. While the “harm” is small and in this case not even physical, my exercising of my supposed right to smoke before school negatively affected my classmates. Similarly, in a larger scale if someone were to commit suicide, there would be a large impact on the people around them. This could be a financial burden on their family or employer, mental harm to the person’s family and friends, as well as potentially a whole slew of trickle down effects in other ways. This was my personal opinion on the situation of Heaven’s Gate at first. I thought that the people should absolutely not be able to commit suicide because it simply is bad for the society as a whole. Yet Mill would argue something different. He would say that to restrict one’s right to commit suicide is bad for society and probably more so than 39 people ending their lives. If those 39 people had not committed suicide, there wouldn’t be millions and millions of people around the world laughing at their stupidity. As terrible as it sounds, this can be beneficial for society. If nobody smoked weed before school because those rules were so heavily enforced, I wouldn’t be able to say as confidently that I shouldn’t smoke weed before school. All that said, I personally still cannot get past the fact that someone committing suicide for no reason should be allowed because to me suicide is the kind of thing that putting restrictions on it doesn’t harm society or infringe upon any of my rights that I wish to exercise. Suicide is almost never beneficial to the victim, and even more rarely the people around the victim.
ReplyDeleteIn On Liberty, Mill makes it very clear that he believes that an individual is free to do whatever they wish, as long as that action does not infringe upon the freedom of others. In that case, he would have believed that the member of Heaven’s Gate were at their own liberty to commit suicide. However, there are two interesting caveats to this belief. First, his belief is based upon the fact that committing suicide only affects the person dying. However, in the event of suicide, most, if not all, families are devastated. Unlike the example of doing drugs in the basement, where someone is truly harming themselves (unless they die), suicide has a direct effect on others. Although their families’ liberties are not being restricted, the action of suicide has an effect on them. The second caveat of this belief is if the members of Heaven’s Gate were brainwashed. In this case, the officers were free to stop everyone from committing suicide, except for the leader. The same rule applies for Jehovah’s witnesses. In the case of the mountain climber, as evidenced by the movie Free Solo, officers should not arrest the climber because they would be heavily infringing on the rights of that person. In the end, people’s freedom to exercise and live their version of their best life should outweigh their families belief.
ReplyDeleteBased on Mill’s “harm to others principal”, he argues that people, more precisely adults, should have the freedom to act and do what they please as long as they are not harming others. Based on this belief, Mill would say that authorities should not be allowed to act against them as the Heavens Gate group’s actions effected only themselves. The choice to commit suicide is often prevented when it is in a public manor, and affects others. By this logic authorities should have done nothing because they acted in private and did not affect others with their own individual actions. Furthermore, the Heaven’s Gate group acted based on a belief that they would be transported to another life and that they were moving on. This is a personal belief and for the authorities to arrest them, would also be saying that their belief is not allowed or that it is wrong. We have already discussed the danger of shielding opinions that we believe to be false and had the Heaven’s Gate group been prevented, they would have been suppressing ‘false’ ideas. I believe that had the cult members been told to do this and not acted in free will, that authorities should have gotten involved, but since I believe that all 39 members acted in their own free will, there is nothing the authorities should have done.
ReplyDeleteAll of these examples use the principle of “Harm to Self” or “Harm to Others”, both of which J.S. Mills discusses in his book, On Liberty. In the case of the Heaven’s Gate cult meetings and mass suicide, both of the principles can be argued for. On one side, the cult leaders were most likely brainwashing the rest of their cult into believing if they committed suicide that there would be transported to the extraterrestrial life that was on other side of the comet. In this case, the cult leaders would be harming the people in their cult with the seemingly false claims and opinions. Both Mills and I would argue that the government should have stepped in and stopped the cult because this falls into the “Harm to Others” principle that Mills agues for. However, there is also a view from the “Harm to Self” principle, which Mills thinks is not valid because the government should not stop a person who is not harming others. In the Heaven’s Comet scenario, it could be argued that the individuals were expressing their freedoms to follow whatever religion or opinion they believe in and with that knowledge, did what they sought was best for them, and committed suicide. In the case of the mountain climber, I believe that the government should not restrict them from the dangerous activity that they are doing. They are not harming others –unless some other circumstances apply— so the government should not have the right to stop them from their activities so long as the climbers know the possible bad outcome (death) of their acts. Same restrictions apply for a Jehovah’s Witness who refuses a blood transfusion. If the man or women is of a sound mental condition and can consciously make his or her own decisions, they have the right to decline a blood transfusion that can possibly save their life. The State should not force them to take the blood transfusion because they are only harming themselves, granted they know the repercussions of their decision. J.S. Mills would also agree that if the person or persons are grown, of sound mind and know the repercussions of their actions and their actions are solely harming the themselves, then the government has no place to interfere with their decision.
ReplyDeleteI believe people should have free will as long as they do not harm others. This definition of harm is where the gray area begins. Do we stop at physical harm or continue to emotional harm? If we continue, how much emotional harm should we allow and how can this be measured? Unfortunately, it appears as if there is no universal rule that applies to every case. 39 members of the Heaven’s Gate committed suicide, but 2 backed out at the last minute. I am sure they do not regret this decision and if law enforcement knew this event would take place, I believe they should have attempted to make sure everyone in the cult was fully conscious of their decision. After that, it is difficult to use law enforcement resources to “babysit” people on whether they will or will not follow through with their plan. The members knew it was their choice to harm themselves. This does not mean that law enforcement should not stop suicides, but it is unrealistic to have officers go door to door in every house to check on the inhabitants’ mental health. If the cult is considered a religious belief, the law should not impede on religious freedom as long as its members are not causing harm to others.
ReplyDeleteI believe that individuals have a right to engage in harmful behavior as long as that harmful behavior does not harm others. John Stuart Mills echoes these beliefs, as Mills argues that “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others” (9). This idea represents Mills’ Harm to Others Principle, which states that the only justification for limiting the freedom and actions of individuals is if it causes harm to others. In the case of a Jehovah Witness who refuses a blood transfusion for a lifesaving operation, I believe that it is ultimately the individual’s choice as to whether or not he receives a blood transfusion and the state cannot force him or her to have the operation, even if it may save his or her life. I agree with Mill when he says that “considerations to aid his judgement, exhortations to strengthen his will may be offered to him, even obtruded on him, by others; but he himself is the final judge” (75). The doctor should give advice to the Jehovah Witness individual, but it is ultimately the individual’s decision as to whether or not he chooses to receive a blood transfusion as it does not directly harm others. In the case of the mountain climber who wants to ascend a dangerous Himalayan mountain peak in the middle of winter, once again I believe that it is up to the mountain climber. As long as the only person that is put in harm’s way is the mountain climber, authorities have no justification for preventing him or her. Could there be exceptions such as mental clarity or bringing a child? Sure, but the mountain climber has the right to put himself in danger unless there is some exception (such as the ones Mill brings up). Now on to the Heaven’s Gate cult, this is an interesting case because one could argue that the cult members were not acting on their own conscious but rather they were brainwashed. In this case, an exception to the Harm Principle could be made on the grounds that the cult members did not understand the reality of the situation and therefore the state could/should have stepped in. Mills even mentions such a mechanism for the interference of the state, as he says that “from this liberty of each individual follows the liberty, within the same limits, of combination among individuals; freedom to unite for any purpose not involving harm to others: the persons combining being supposed to be of full age and not forced or deceived” (12). This addresses the freedom to meet and unite among individuals, however in the case of the cult meeting there clearly was harm to others and I would argue that the members were deceived into believing that they could catch a ride with a spaceship. Based on this, I believe that authorities would have been justified in arresting the cult members to prevent their deaths on the basis that the cult members were deceived by the cult leaders and that they were not acting on self-interests that aligned with reality.
ReplyDeleteI am all about making your own choices, but there is a limit to this. In the Case of the Heaven’s Gate cult, I believe the police definitely should have been allowed to prevent the suicides given that they knew of the plans. On the other hand, I do not think they should allow arrest.
ReplyDeleteSuicide in the eyes of Mill is something that we should not be allowed to choose because it’s “injurious to one selves” and by doing such, one “abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any future use of it beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of himself. He is no longer free “(Mill 101). Mill’s reasoning shows us that freedom is an ability we have and that we are prohibited from doing anything that puts an end to our freedom because whatever it is, it is not in our best interests. Mill believes that freedoms shouldn’t be limited in order for society to keep moving forward and suicide gets in the way of that.
Personally, I agree with Mill. Committing suicide is something that cannot be undone and it is impossible to definitively know if the person truly wants it. With that said, I don’t think that the Heaven’s Gate cult should have been arrested had the plans been found out in advance. I feel that I mental institution would be a better fit because it is the outcome that preserves the most freedoms. I know it doesn’t allow them to “ascend”, but it allows them live, which is the most important freedom in itself.
I am all about making your own choices, but there is a limit to this. In the Case of the Heaven’s Gate cult, I believe the police definitely should have been allowed to prevent the suicides given that they knew of the plans. On the other hand, I do not think they should allow arrest.
ReplyDeleteSuicide in the eyes of Mill is something that we should not be allowed to choose because it’s “injurious to one selves” and by doing such, one “abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any future use of it beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of himself. He is no longer free “(Mill 101). Mill’s reasoning shows us that freedom is an ability we have and that we are prohibited from doing anything that puts an end to our freedom because whatever it is, it is not in our best interests. Mill believes that freedoms shouldn’t be limited in order for society to keep moving forward and suicide gets in the way of that.
Personally, I agree with Mill. Committing suicide is something that cannot be undone and it is impossible to definitively know if the person truly wants it. With that said, I don’t think that the Heaven’s Gate cult should have been arrested had the plans been found out in advance. I feel that I mental institution would be a better fit because it is the outcome that preserves the most freedoms. I know it doesn’t allow them to “ascend”, but it allows them live, which is the most important freedom in itself.