Relativism and Schiavo

David Brooks has an interesting column out on the Schiavo case. He makes, however, a common error of the cultural conservative in conflating a principle of freedom with a principle of relativism. People normally don't find this confusing when you talk about things other than sex or death. The Go Fug Yourself people are not being non-judgmental about fashion, and certainly don't think there are no objective standards by which fashion choices may be judged. Nevertheless, I take it that they don't think celebrities should be legally prohibited from wearing fugly attire, should they choose to do so. This is liberalism. Brooks thinks the liberal view on the Schiavo case contains no moral principles. I would say, rather, that each liberal's view contains two principles.

One is a principle about how society should govern itself in regard to these dilemmas. The answer: According to individual choice as determined, in cases of controversy, by the law. The other is the principle about what you would choose for yourself (or, rather, what would you have those who care about you choose for you) under the circumstances. My choice would be to die with some measure of dignity rather than endure an indefinite and ghastly pseudo-life. But I see no reason to think this choice should be forced onto other people. When the cultural conservative wants to argue the merits of his (presumably "faith-based" as the saying goes) alternative view, I'm happy to debate. Worry about "turning this country into a theocracy," (though overblown in any case) is not a worry about "moral arguments" but about inappropriate efforts to instantiate outcomes through coercion rather than persuasion.