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?
Individuals have the right to engage in harmful behavior that is meaningful to them as they have they may freely make their own decisions that do not put others at risk/ harm. Though when caught in the act, authorities are trained to attempt to restrain individuals from attempting to take their own lives, if someone wants to preform an action that they believe is meaningful or significant to their life and do it under their free will, they should be allowed to. If the government starts placing laws against doing things that may result in injury or even death or because it is not necessarily socially accepted, soon we will have a very strict country and lose many of the principal freedoms that our nation is founded on. As an individual in this country, you have the right to make your own choices so long as they do not put the lives of others in danger and are only done for personal fulfilment. In cases such as a Jehovah Witness being told they need a blood transfusion, often times what they will say is that they would rather die than have the blood transfusion done. It is clear that restricting them from living out their personal pursuits and actually results in them not wanting to live at all. Their choice of refusing the blood transfusion would only affect themselves and they are fulfilled by not taking it and therefore they should be able to make that choice to refuse it and engage in their desired behavior as it only affects their lives and in fact, gives them what they consider a meaningful life.
ReplyDeleteI agree with mill in the sense that everyone of age should be able to do or think what they want to as long as it does not harm anyone but the doer. Following this philosophy, the right for the mountain climber to attempt a dangerous climb or the right to enact harm against themselves, yet I feel like a Jehovah Witness refusing treatment because of their religion or a Heaven’s gate believer commuting suicide for their religion is different. It is important to understand that these cases are separate due to the social aspect. These are examples of people who are a part of a group and are expected to act with the group, and there is a pressure to have a certain level of involvement, even if in rational mind the participant would not go along. Its something that many people experience, a situation where they take an action that they necessarily don’t agree with to appease a group, and perhaps this action perpetuates or intensifies their involvement in said group, so if someone is being influenced or convinced by another then are they really acting out of their own freedom. Therefore, when discussing ones right to organize under a believe these things must be considered. Another issue arises when you look how in the example of someone using their free will to join a religion and how in joining that religion they are forfeiting a lot of individuality in leu of conformity. Ultimately, when examining someone’s theoretical right to unite with others it is important to consider how that union affects the individuals own liberty and freedom.
ReplyDeleteGeneral speaking, harmful action done to one's self ought not be impeded by others, so long as the benefit perceived by the actor outweighs the risk perceived by the observer. Allowing others to act in a way contrary to popular conventions, as explained by J.S. Mill ought to be allowed because there is the chance that conventional action is actually less beneficial than novel action, and stands to be corrected. For this reason, it is not justified to force a blood transfusion on a Jehovah Witness, because though most of society might not share their belief, there is always the small chance that such a procedure might actually prevent them from entering the afterlife, and it would be unfair to potentially force them into an eternity of suffering because they were perceived as having unreasonable beliefs. It does not seem that there is much use in forcing someone to face a life which they honestly believe is not worth living. However, it seems important to note that contrary to Mill’s writing, if we were weighing death against minor inconvenience rather than against eternal suffering, then the justness of infringing on their rights would increase, as the most potentially beneficial action changes. Therefore, in the case of the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult committing mass suicide, so long as the thought that they stood to benefit substantially from their actions and had accepted their beliefs by their own will (i.e. with thoughtfulness and without coercion), authorities would not have been justified in preventing their death.
ReplyDeleteThis was me, I wasn't signed in when I posted it
DeleteArgh, it won't let me sign in but this is Luke
DeleteHad authorities known of the mass suicide planned by Heaven’s Gate leader Marshall Applewhite, they would have been justified to intervene as the members had no other choice than to carry out Applewhite’s plan. According to Mill, the government should not limit one’s liberty unless there is harm to others. However, when it comes to self harm, Mill believes that liberty should not be limited. This ideology seems to be logical, but can cause debate when there are many layers to the situation. The Heaven’s Gate members who committed the suicides were heavily influenced by their leader, Marshall Applewhite, thus allowing the authorities the right to intervene had they known of the plan. Due to the group being a cult, Applewhite and his inner-circle had full control of the members, and convinced them to commit suicide, which is, according to Mill, harm to others and should not be allowed. Applewhite had full control over the minds and actions of the members in his cult, and could do anything or cause harm to them whenever he wanted. I do, however, believe that the authorities would not have the right to arrest the group members because they had no control or choice in anything they did or believed, but rather Applewhite as he was the one initiating the actions of the group, ultimately causing them harm. While suicide does theoretically follow Mill’s harm to self principle, this tragic case does not and follows the harm to others principle, thus justifying authorities to intervene if they knew, and justifies to take action and arrest the perpetrator.
ReplyDeleteWhen Christopher Columbus wanted to sail across the ocean to discover a new trading route, many thought he was certainly doomed to die at sea. Luckily, the authorities did not stop him from trying because he stumbled upon the Americas. Had we stopped astronauts from flying into space in fear of "certain death", we would not have uncovered so much about outer space. These are just two examples that help rationalize why, according to Mill, the government should not limit one's liberty unless there is harm to others and when it comes to self-harm, liberty should not be limited. When someone wants to act in a way that is in opposition to popular belief, they should be allowed because there is a chance that their way is better than the conventional like in the case of Columbus and space travel. In some cases, it is more difficult to see why it is wrong to try to stop people from acting in a possibly harmful way. Although we can't say for sure that the Heaven's Gate cult or Jehovah's Witnesses actually gained benefit from dying, it is the principle that it possibly could have that makes it wrong to try to stop them from going against conventional beliefs. If we stopped people from trying things that could revolutionize the modern way of thinking just because it put one’s own health at risk, then we would be deprived of so much now.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Mill, if authorities had known about the Heaven’s Gate cult’s plan, they would not have been justified in arresting cult members. Mill is a firm believer of anti-paternalism, he thinks that any act that harms an individual other than themself is wrong and should not be completed; he cares if others get hurt, but does not care if one hurts themself. He also believes that an individual should be able to have their own viewpoints and be able to make actions based off these viewpoints (as long as it does not harm others), “It is for him to find out what part of recorded experience is properly applicable to his own circumstances and character.” (Mill 55). Mill explains that an individual has to make their own decisions by themself as each individual is different. If something is meaningful to an individual, even if it causes harm to that same individual, Mill believes that it is alright for that individual to complete the said action as long as that individual does not inflict harm on others. To Mill a thriving human is one who uses their privilege of ability to express their individuality, for example this could mean taking an art class for one individual, or in this case, joining a cult where mass suicide occurs. Because each individual made the choice of joining the cult for themself, and chose to commit harm to themself understanding that they may not make it out alive, Mill would argue that this situation was okay. As a result, authorities would not have been justified in arresting cult members because each member made their own decision to join the cult.
ReplyDeleteThe Heaven’s Gate cult is a very interesting example of applying philosophical ideas to real life situations. Its helps us consider to what extent the ideologies Mills discuses can be umbrella-ed to different examples. Mills states that an individual can make their own decisions including ones regarding their safety. He argues that unless someone else’s liberty or wellbeing is sacrificed the government cannot intercept. Arguably everyone in the Heaven’s Gate cult made the final decision to end their lives, individual liberty, but they had be influenced for years by someone else. I believe this is a case where Mills would say it would be okay for the government to intervene. The leader of the cult, Marshall Applewhite had taken away their individual liberty under false pretenses. They were brainwashed so heavily they didn’t even know. That’s what makes this case especially difficult to analyze. It hard to understand the perspective of those in the cult and to what extent they understood the reality. Although they were individuals with their own unique point of views, that view had been crafted by someone else. I think there is way Mills could make an argument for both sides. One reason for this is because perhaps Applewhite had been right and his supernatural ideas actually occurred. Mills would argue it would not have been okay for authorities to interfere because that would be challenging a possible truth. I know I am not giving one clear answer, but overall I believe both sides could be argued.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the sentiment Mill makes that it is unjustified for authorities to arrest individuals to prevent their deaths, because they should have autonomy over decisions that don’t harm others, and are significant to society. Mill believes that if you can qualify that the actions are not hurting other people, then an individual should be free to harm themselves, or do anything with their life. Mill essentially claims that even if an authoritative entity does corrupt things for the supposed good, it is hard to define what is morally good. If what the government supposed to be right was actually wrong, then they would have suppressed the rights of that individual. It is better to leave a person to cause harm to themselves, than to potentially suppress their rights. Mill believes that people should have autonomy over their own decisions, and in order to do so the government must not impede these rights in any way. It is not just enough for the government to resist controlling certain self-harming actions, but must not have any legal framework that would impede people from doing so. There is a counterargument Mill brings up in chapter three that claims people have societal obligations that they must fulfil, and they are not fulfilling them if they potentially harm themselves or even end their lives. Mill refutes this claim by stating that this only causes the characters they are oppressing to further resist restraint, causing more harm to society. Additionally, Mill argues that the loss to society of certain people harming themselves is less significant than the gain that is brought from individuals spurring on innovation and change.
ReplyDeleteEveryday many people engage in acts that could potentially harm them and while, some acts have more risks than others, there is no reason or even way to stop people from doing things that could potentially kill them. I think that in the stance of a group suicide police should be able to intervene and stop that from happening even though everyone has agreed to it. This is because we don’t know if these people are in their right minds or are being coursed into doing this for some reason, and like said above police stop people from committing suicide usually. However I do think that you shouldn’t be able to be arrested for doing something like suicide, unless you are doing it in a way that would harm the people around you or the property around you. For example if you started a fire in a building. As long as you aren't trying to "bring others with you" then you shouldn’t be able to be arrested because it's an act against yourself. In instances however such as engaging in dangerous activities such as parkour, mountain biking or ice climbing, police shouldn’t be able to arrest or stop people from doing them. Even though they are dangerous and people can end up seriously injured or dead, that is that individuals choice if they want to do that. For them its an activity and they most likely know the dangerous it poses and if they want to go through with that in their life then that’s their choice. What sets these two apart is that when someone is trying to commit suicide they are starting with the intention of taking their own life. With these other examples, those individuals are doing an activity that they just want to have fun with and have no intention of ending their life.
ReplyDeleteHad authorities known of the plans of the Heaven’s Gate cult, they should have acted in ways to prevent the deaths that occurred and would have been justified in arresting the cult members. While individual have their liberties to allow them to make their own personal decisions, with something as complicated as suicide and death, it never really ends up being an individual choice. From a simple standpoint, based on the emotional trauma of friends and family from your death and the people reliant on you, choosing your own death is a choice you are forcibly making for other people. People should not be allowed to choose their own death simply because it is not an individual choice. For the mountain climber example, this is not a blatant suicide attempt but rather a herculean athletic achievement. While it is definitely a risk, it isn’t the same type of risk as something like driving drunk, but rather something where the certainty of death is fairly low and should be allowed. I think as Mill’s has stated, you can deter the action and try to prevent it from occurring by stating the danger to the general public, but if they still take the risk that is their choice because it is not a guarantee of death.
ReplyDelete