Should We Respect Irrational Choices?
Case Study 2: Should We Respect Irrational Choices?
It is widely accepted that we ought to respect the free choices of individuals when these choices do not harm others. Proponents of this view might justify their position by appealing to John Stuart Mill’s famous ‘harm Principle’:
“The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilized community is, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. . . . Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.” (On Liberty)
If Mill is right, then we should allow adult members of our society to do as they wish so long as they do not harm others. The state or community is not warranted in interfering with a person’s choices or way of life for any other reason. On the assumption that Mill’s harm principle is correct, what should we say about people who harm others who wish to be harmed? Is it possible to harm another person who requests this treatment? And is the state or community justified in interfering in such cases?
One of the most shocking cases of this kind occurred in Germany in 2001. As reported by Reuters, Armin Meiwes killed and ate his victim, Bernd-Juergen Brandes, upon his request. The latter had posted an ad on the Internet for someone to “obliterate his life and leave no trace.” Brandes traveled by train to meet Meiwes in March of 2001. Meiwes followed Brandes’ expressed wishes by killing and consuming him.
In 2006, Meiwes was found guilty of murder and sentences to life in prison. The court rejected Meiwes’ defense that he could not be convicted of murder because he killed his victim upon his request.
(1) Did Meiwes murder or otherwise harm Brandes, given that Brandes requested this treatment?
(2) Did Brandes make a free choice? Did he make a rational choice? Why or why not?
(3) Is the state justified in interfering in cases of this kind? If so, how might it justify its interference?
Loading ...