Brooks Does It Again!

I can always trust David to give me something to write about.

In today's NYT, Mr. Brooks opines on the ethical dimensions of the Schiavo case. Now of course we can predict that Mr. Brooks will give what appears to be a somewhat critical analysis of conservative arguments and give a sympathetic hearing the liberal ones. Until you slap your forehead an hour later and realize that the fix is in. Again.

Brooks' depiction of the right-left divide on the issue is that while the former believes that physical existence alone provides the essential key in determining life, the latter believes that the quality of that life must be considered when defining life, i.e. the worth of the thing can effect the value of its mere being. Brooks suggests that while the right can fall prey to a certain literal-mindedness, the left's position lacks moral depth.

Wow, that sounds fair, doesn't it? The right can take life too seriously, while the left sometimes doesn't take life seriously enough. Now ask yourself, who comes off worse in this exchange? Conservatives are too passionate about valuing life while liberals don't think life is all that important. And by the way, they are immoral. Golly gee that sounds like a favorable desciption of liberalism!

Brooks gets it wrong of course. There is an important moral argument that liberals other than the vapid Brooksian straw man can deploy. Namely that we should value autonomy. When a person is utterly deprived of it, life can be no longer worth living. More importantly, we should leave it to a person to make this decision, not condition that choice on the views of interested others. Terry Schiavo said that she never wanted to live this way. The right has decided that what she thinks about the matter simply doesn't count, because they know better. From the perspective of the right, the judgment of the theocrats always trumps any individual decisions. Tell me again how moral it is if you deprive others of their ability to choose? Have they forgotten that without free will there is no sin, and no redemption? That there is, in fact, no morality?

Matt Yglesias' comments on this issue, to the extent that I understand them, are very much in line with my own take. Brooks fails to realize that the key distinction is not morality or the lack of it, but the conflict between two very different moralities. The conservative morality believes that the dictates of society (rather through utility or divine fiat) always trumps the will of the individual person. The liberal morality says that it is the obligation of the community not to displace individual choice but enable it, in order to maximize the meaningful exercise of the capacity for choice. We on the left think that we should respect Terry Schiavo's decision. We are her only real defenders.