Case 7: Vertical Limit
- Ayush Kumar
- Feb 9
- 6 min read
📝 Editorial Note:
This article is part of an ongoing 8-part scholarly series titled “The System of Reciprocal Duties”, preceded by an introductory index post. The series explores how rights emerge from corresponding duties through a structured Hohfeldian and Kantian framework. This part examines the right of necessity and the limits of self-determination through the Vertical Limit scenario, analysing how extreme conflicts of duties are resolved within the private sphere and the role of consent in shaping legal responsibility.
🔗 Index:
Non-conflictual jural relationships
From Self-Regarding Acts to the Model of Spheres
Boyce Garrett has decided to take a trip to Utah, where he will enjoy rock climbing with his two sons, Peter and Annie. Due to the negligence of two other climbers, they are hanging from a single anchor point. Boyce recognizes that the anchor in the rock will not be sufficient to hold the weight of all three and instructs Peter to cut the rope. Boyce falls into the void and saves Peter and Annie's lives.
The exercise can be approached from the perspective of the right of necessity, in the sense of Peter's action of taking his father's life to save his own. According to Kant, this should not be judged as irreproachable but only as not punishable. However, we will first review Mr. Boyce's decision in the context of his prima facie duties to himself. This analysis will allow us to determine whether there is a social duty of non-interference on Peter's part.
After determining that all other means of saving a life are impossible, Mr. Boyce faces a conflict of duties. On the one hand, he has a prima facie duty to preserve his own life. On the other hand, he has a prima facie duty of beneficence to do what is necessary to save Peter and Annie's lives. However, this duty of beneficence cannot be considered a legal duty toward others. Sacrificing one's life would exceed the limits of a duty of beneficence. In the context of rock climbing, a strong sports ethic is generally accepted. However, this conduct is not reasonably enforceable based on the principle of reciprocity in the social sphere. It is an imperfect duty to himself.
In principle, suicide is considered contrary to one's duty to oneself. According to Pufendorf, suicide violates the individual's duty to lead a dignified life and be useful to society. However, it would be admissible under certain conditions. It would be permissible if certain types of work would provoke a painful life for an individual but served a useful purpose for human society. For Kant, using oneself as a mere means to an end distorts one's humanity. However, he leaves open questions such as whether it would be permissible to save one's country, humanity in general, or prevent others from contracting diseases such as rabies.
Boyce Garrett decides to sacrifice his own life in a prima facie conflict of duties to himself. Since duties to oneself are not enforceable through external coercive mechanisms, an individual's decision to end his own life would not be reviewable by society on its merits. Kant argues that suicide can also be considered a transgression of duty toward others (e.g., spouses, children, rulers, fellow citizens, and God). It must then be determined whether the indirect effects of the conduct can justify its reprehensible nature. In our view, all other circumstances being equal, the direct effects on the individual determine that his conduct takes place in the private sphere. Mediate effects can also be part of one's duties to oneself, as in the case of self-realization for the sake of being useful to society. However, the idea of an external duty to exist would lead to the instrumentalization of the person. The principle of human dignity does not impose an objective duty on members of society to prevent Mr. Boyce from taking his own life. In our opinion, this source of protection rights does not derive from the individual's capacity for self-determination, but rather from an objective value or interest of all members of human society. The principle of human dignity can only give rise to objective duties if the individual lacks the capacity to act freely and rationally. A different position would be incompatible with a system based on individual freedom.
In the social sphere, each of us recognizes the value of respecting freedom of choice, even if it endangers the individual's own life. This complies with the principle of reciprocity contained in the formula of universal law. From this derives the no-right of others and of society. The German Federal Constitutional Court has ruled that decisions about one's voluntary end-of-life do not require additional explanation or justification. According to the court, self-determination in this area belongs to the “most fundamental area of personality” of human beings. In this area, individuals are free to choose their own rules and decide according to them. Boyce Garrett's decision to sacrifice his life is therefore governed by the principle of autonomy, which tends to prevail in the private sphere, especially in the absence of direct harm to others.
Mr. Boyce’s choice to sacrifice himself to save Peter and Annie's lives stems from his assessment of his duties to himself in the context of a non-conflicting relationship. Mr. Boyce's freedom of self-determination opposes (‹›) the social no-right of everyone and the no-duty of Mr. Boyce to others.
The right of defense is the external face of determining the end. In a non-conflictive relationship, this becomes an actual right and is correlated (~) with a duty for each of us, the other members of society, not to interfere in that resolution.
[Case 8: Vertical Limit II] Was Peter's decision to cut the rope a violation of his father's right to life? Peter is an adult who can make decisions independently. He faces a prima facie conflict of duties to himself. His duty to preserve his own life, his duty of benevolence to save Annie's life, and his duty of obedience to his father could conflict with his duty of benevolence to save his father's life. As we have noted, the latter would be supererogatory. It would therefore not be enforceable as a duty towards others.
However, unlike in Boyce's case, Peter may have a duty of non-interference in his father's life. At this point, we must ask whether his father's decision releases Peter from his prima facie duty not to interfere with his father's life. As in the case of society's objective duty to protect people's lives, we believe that there can be no duty of non-interference on Peter's part without his father's correlated right of self-defense. As we have seen, his father had chosen an end other than preserving his life. Thus, Peter's prima facie duty of non-interference is not a social duty but rather an imperfect duty to himself. Although Peter's actions have serious consequences for others, consent determines that the action occurs in the private sphere.
Whether Peter's conduct in cutting the rope is reprehensible or not depends on everyone's social duty not to interfere in Boyce Garrett's decision. It is no longer just a question of Peter sacrificing the life of someone who wasn't causing danger to save his own, but rather, of him acting as an instrument to carry out his father's resolution. The father's lack of means to carry out his resolution is a factual element. Peter has the knife and carries out the experienced climber's decision. This is the approach of the German Federal Constitutional Court regarding assisted suicide. A legal prohibition would prevent those who lack the physical capacity to do so themselves from carrying out their determination to take their own life. This would be an indirect or de facto prohibition. A social prohibition of Peter's actions in cutting the rope would contradict everyone's duty to not interfere with Boyce Garrett's decision.
This article is based on:
Espinoza Rausseo, A., & Rivas Alberti, J. (2026). Duties Towards Oneself and Self-Regarding Actions in the System of Reciprocal Duties. Mexican Law Review, 18(2), e20548. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24485306e.2026.2.20548
Comments