Relativism and Choice

Re-reading David Brooks' column and my response to the charge of relativism, it occurs to me that there was something else I wanted to say. The dilemma we face as a society is not, I think, that (as Brooks has it) the liberal and conservative views on this are both half-right. Instead, I think the problem is that the liberal view on this has a structural feature that leads liberals to become more self-righteous than we ought to be.

I described the liberal as having a two-stage view about end of life issues. First, comes something like the "life as continuum" view Brooks attributes to us. Second, comes a principle of free choice -- I think that I should make my own decision on this, but that my view should not control others, though I may try to persuade others that my view is correct (non-relativism). The problem here is that I think a lot of liberals don't recognize that the second principle really does depend on something akin to the first. If you hold views about the sanctity of life and the doing/allowing distinction that lead you to the conclusion that failing to keep alive someone who could be kept alive is the equivalent to murder, then adopting a principle of free choise at the second level makes no sense. An absolutist view on the first question requires an absolutist view on the second question.

I don't think liberals should adopt the absolutist view, but I do think liberals need to see it for what it is. Oftentimes in cases like these I think liberals see ourselves as being more generous to our opponents than we really are. "After all," we say, "if you want to be kept alive in a persistent vegetative state, we won't stop you, why are you trying to impose your preferences on us?" And of course we won't stop "culture of life" types from keeping themselves in their persistent vegetative states. But this neglects the fact that people who would want to endure such a state indefinitely probably do so for a reason, like the aforementioned view that failing to do so would be like murder. If that's what you think, then freedom is a non-started, just as we don't regard the prohibition on gunning random people down in the street to be a restriction of liberty in a meaningful sense.

As I say, I think liberals have the right policy conclusion here. But we would do well to keep in mind that our disagreement with our opponents really is a disagreement about deep moral issues (in what sense is life sacred?) and not really about liberty or lack thereof. This is the flipside of asking conservative to see that liberal/libertarian preferences for choices in these matters isn't a manifestation of relativism. The assymetries here, and the failure of many people on both sides to appreciate the, leads to a public debate that's a lot more vicious than it ought to be.