My client wants to cross the pass in a storm. Is stopping him paternalism, or just my job?
Its coordinates: 6.4.2 Rights and Liberty
Last season a client, a strong man from Germany with good equipment and a lot of money, wanted to cross the Thorong La on a morning when the clouds were already low and the wind was rising. I said no. He said it was his life and his risk, and he was paying me to guide, not to decide. We stayed in the tea house. He was angry for two days. The next week, on a similar morning, a group on the other side was caught in the snow.
I have been reading Mill. In On Liberty he says that if someone is about to cross a bridge known to be unsafe, and there is no time to warn him, you may seize him and turn him back, because liberty is doing what you want, and he does not want to fall into the river. But my client was warned. He knew the risk and wanted to go anyway.
Things I am unsure about:
- Is his risk ever only his? If he goes, I go, and the porters go, and the rescue team goes.
- Does paying for a guide mean paying for a decision, or only for advice?
- Monks I know say attachment to the summit is the real danger. Is it my business to protect him from his own craving?