Sally is a 53 year old woman who has been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. She has decided that she wants to commit suicide rather than become a burden on her family. Dr. Steve is willing to help her end her life peacefully even though society is strongly opposed to it. In this essay, I will explain how society can and can’t interfere with Sally’s decision according to Mill’s ideas in his essay On Liberty.
Before we can determine how society can interfere in this situation, we must define Mill’s harm principle. Mill’s harm principle states that we have liberty and freedom over ourselves in self-regarding actions so long as they don’t harm others. In order to make things clear, Mill makes an important distinction between actual harm (hurting …show more content…
The fact that Sally made the decision while she still had the capacity to do so allows the harm principle to come into play. While Sally’s decision does not cause actual harm to anyone else, it still affects others. Her action deeply offends her religious community and has drawn much opposition. The harm principle does not allow society to use force in order to stop Sally because she is only offending them. If society does step in and use force, they will violate Sally’s right to freedom/liberty over herself. Society can however, carry out social consequences on Sally and Dr. Steve such as incurring a bad reputation and intense criticism. Some of these social consequences have been mentioned in the given scenario such as death threats (pretty extreme), protests, and speeches from leaders in the community. The only thing society can do at this point is try to persuade/pressure Sally or Dr. Steve to change their mind. Society can step into this situation with force if Sally made the decision to commit suicide while she did not have the mental capacity to make a rational decision. There would be laws in place to prevent Sally from going through with her decision and laws to punish Dr. Steve for trying to help
Before we can determine how society can interfere in this situation, we must define Mill’s harm principle. Mill’s harm principle states that we have liberty and freedom over ourselves in self-regarding actions so long as they don’t harm others. In order to make things clear, Mill makes an important distinction between actual harm (hurting …show more content…
The fact that Sally made the decision while she still had the capacity to do so allows the harm principle to come into play. While Sally’s decision does not cause actual harm to anyone else, it still affects others. Her action deeply offends her religious community and has drawn much opposition. The harm principle does not allow society to use force in order to stop Sally because she is only offending them. If society does step in and use force, they will violate Sally’s right to freedom/liberty over herself. Society can however, carry out social consequences on Sally and Dr. Steve such as incurring a bad reputation and intense criticism. Some of these social consequences have been mentioned in the given scenario such as death threats (pretty extreme), protests, and speeches from leaders in the community. The only thing society can do at this point is try to persuade/pressure Sally or Dr. Steve to change their mind. Society can step into this situation with force if Sally made the decision to commit suicide while she did not have the mental capacity to make a rational decision. There would be laws in place to prevent Sally from going through with her decision and laws to punish Dr. Steve for trying to help