I voted (3), but really, the answer depends on the purpose of the mission, and the overall purpose of the space program.
If the point is to colonize other worlds, open new frontiers, escape the confines of this single planet in order to ensure the survival of humans and other terrestrial species, then there's no point. If you can't establish a viable colony, then you're not ready yet. Send robots until you are. Build and expand in stages.
If the purpose is commercial, then the answer is similar but for a different reason: it has no ROI. If you can't return, then the investment required just to get humans to Mars alive is too great. Again, send a robot.
If the purpose is PR (which is one of NASA's priorities) then the answer is maybe -- as in yes, but only if the PR is positive and promotes the kind of optics the agency wants. This kind of mission is more of a stunt, a spectacle, than promoting science and exploration. Right now, NASA's PR mission is more of the latter than the former, but who knows -- perhaps NASA needs more of a spectacle. Look at how much attention the Mars rovers get, and it's because they're more than a little bit spectacular.
If the purpose is pure science and exploration, then yes. If there are volunteers, why not? Plenty of explorers throughout history have taken huge risks and paid for their lives to expand human knowledge, and we've benefited. If they're willing, then who are we to judge?