In January 2012, two sisters were found dead due to starvation in Shiroishi, Sapporo city, Japan. Why were the sisters unable to receive public assistance? The reason why one of them didn't receive public assistance was, according to the record, 'because she didn't show her will to do so.' Admitting the fact, what was the real problem here? The purpose of this paper was to analyze this problem by shedding light on the 'non-choice elements' that deeply affect individual rational choices. Our analysis using Sen's Social Choice Approach shed light on the possibility of someone dying even as social choice procedures involving her can ostensibly satisfy all conditions of free expression of individual preferences, the Pareto Principle, and respect for the individual's decision power. Our analysis using the Capability approach has made clear that she had a very limited and miserable prospect for the future assignment of capability. By applying for public assistance, her capability will shrink in 'self-respect' in exchange for a better prospect for 'decent living’, while by rejecting public assistance, her capability will shrink in decent living in exchange for a better prospect for self-respect. If she didn't know what alternative actions she could choose, didn't have any reasonable prospect for her living and self-respect, and didn't have any advisor to consult, then could the fact that she 'didn't show her will to apply' for public assistance justify anything at all? It would be dangerous to assume that individual choices (not to apply, for example) automatically satisfy her own interests if she cares about the social conscience when forming her preference and makes a choice by accepting a social decision procedure that reflects her will correctly. These are the tentative conclusions of this paper from analyzing the starvation case using Sen's Social Choice Approach and the Capability Approach.
