Morality and Reality (Schiavo)

NY Times ^ | March 26, 2005 | DAVID BROOKS

[neverdem]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

The core belief that social conservatives bring to cases like Terri Schiavo's is that the value of each individual life is intrinsic. The value of a life doesn't depend upon what a person can physically do, experience or achieve. The life of a comatose person or a fetus has the same dignity and worth as the life of a fully functioning adult.

Social conservatives go on to say that if we make distinctions about the value of different lives, if we downgrade those who are physically alive but mentally incapacitated, if we say that some people can be more easily moved toward death than others, then the strong will prey upon the helpless, and the dignity of all our lives will be diminished.

The true bright line is not between lives, they say, but between life and death. The proper rule, as Robert P. George of Princeton puts it, should be, "Always to care, never to kill."

The weakness of the social conservative case is that for most of us, especially in these days of advanced medical technology, it is hard to ignore distinctions between different modes of living. In some hospital rooms, there are people living forms of existence that upon direct contact do seem even worse than death.

Moreover, most of us believe in transcendence, in life beyond this one. Therefore why is it so necessary to cling ferociously to this life? Why not allow the soul to ascend to whatever is in store for it?

The core belief that social liberals bring to cases like Ms. Schiavo's is that the quality of life is a fundamental human value. They don't emphasize the bright line between life and death; they describe a continuum between a fully lived life and a life that, by the sort of incapacity Terri Schiavo has suffered, is mere existence.

On one end of that continuum are those fortunate enough to be able to live fully - to decide and act, to experience the world and be free. On the other end are those who, tragically, can do none of these things, and who are merely existing.

Social liberals warn against vitalism, the elevation of physical existence over other values. They say it is up to each individual or family to draw their own line to define when life passes to mere existence.

The central weakness of the liberal case is that it is morally thin. Once you say that it is up to individuals or families to draw their own lines separating life from existence, and reasonable people will differ, then you are taking a fundamental issue out of the realm of morality and into the realm of relativism and mere taste.

You are saying, as liberals do say, that society should be neutral and allow people to make their own choices. You are saying, as liberals do say, that we should be tolerant and nonjudgmental toward people who make different choices.

What begins as an appealing notion - that life and death are joined by a continuum - becomes vapid mush, because we are all invited to punt when it comes time to do the hard job of standing up for common principles, arguing right and wrong, and judging those who make bad decisions.

You end up exactly where many liberals ended up this week, trying to shift arguments away from morality and on to process.

If you surveyed the avalanche of TV and print commentary that descended upon us this week, you found social conservatives would start the discussion with a moral argument about the sanctity of life, and then social liberals would immediately start talking about jurisdictions, legalisms, politics and procedures. They were more comfortable talking about at what level the decision should be taken than what the decision should be.

Then, if social conservatives tried to push their moral claims, you'd find liberals accusing them of turning this country into a theocracy - which is an effort to cast all moral arguments beyond the realm of polite conversation.

Once moral argument is abandoned, there are no ethical checks, no universal standards, and everything is left to the convenience and sentiments of the individual survivors.

What I'm describing here is the clash of two serious but flawed arguments. The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.

No wonder many of us feel agonized this week, betwixt and between, as that poor woman slowly dehydrates.

E-mail: dabrooks@nytimes.com

[feedback doctor]

. . .They were more comfortable talking about at what level the decision should be taken than what the decision should be

Hint: he's not just talking about liberals here!

[goldstategop]

I believe in right and wrong. And I have two beliefs connected with it: 1) human life is sacred and 2) the taking of an innocent life is always wrong. I don't subscribe to that liberal moral mush which finds exceptions and argues every case is different. No - it isn't! To be a civilized society, there must be a bright and clear line between life and death. There must be clear values that always compel us to act rightly even when its not popular. For me, the above principles admit of no debate because they define our faith and they speak to our humanity.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Jeff Chandler]

I agree with number 1, but I take exception with "the taking of an innocent life is always wrong."

There are situations, such as collateral damage in war, when the taking of innocent life cannot be avoided, and therefore is not wrong, only tragic.

[goldstategop]

I phrased it as absolute. Obviously, it doesn't cover situations in which an innocent life is taken in other circumstances such as war, in which the loss of life is a tragedy as you rightly observed and not a sin. I read it to cover every other situation in which an innocent life is deliberately taken, contrary to moral and human law. We need a clear dividing line to recognize what is and what is not permissable. Perhaps if our society acknowledged it, we would not be where we are today.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Cicero]

David Brooks has the same problem as William Safire. He loves the culture of death. The New York Times would never hire a real conservative, because they value abortion and perversion too much.

It got so you were lucky to get one good column out of Safire in a whole year. Brooks will go the same way.

[Jeff Chandler]

We most definitely must fight the concept of killing the innocent for the convenience of the living.

[NutCrackerBoy]

The Brooks piece was helpful to me.

[goldstategop]

Agreed. We must fight two of the justifications commonly offered for it: 1) lessening our own burden and 2) financial interest in the victim's death.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Mind-numbed Robot]

I phrased it as absolute. Obviously, it doesn't cover ...

And there is the problem with absolutes, there are always exceptions which contradict them.

[ClaireSolt]

Journalists are part of the problem. Because they want to be famous, what we get are journalists interpreting and opining without bringing in any serious thinkers on the subject.

[Jorge]

The socially conservative argument has tremendous moral force, but doesn't accord with the reality we see when we walk through a hospice. The socially liberal argument is pragmatic, but lacks moral force.

Excellent starting point for a REAL debate on this issue.

I think the true moral force lies somewhere between the two.

[claudiustg]

---Moreover, most of us believe in transcendence, in life beyond this one. Therefore why is it so necessary to cling ferociously to this life? Why not allow the soul to ascend to whatever is in store for it?---

Yeah, right up the chimney.

[Penner]

The weakness of the social conservative case is that for most of us, especially in these days of advanced medical technology, it is hard to ignore distinctions between different modes of living.

Yuppie morality.

[goldstategop]

Yes, there are. We still have the ideal to guide us, if no other reason than clarity. As human beings we all crave for boundaries.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

Ah, yes, the euphemisms. We've become so comfortable with them, we hardly take the time to realize what we're really talking about. As Captain Picard learns in the course of a conversation with Guinan in "The Measure Of A Man", facing up to the demands of moral truth is easier said than done.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[neverdem]

The Brooks piece was helpful to me.

Good for you. I hoped somebody would appreciate it.

[Jim Noble]

This is actually a very good bird's-eye view of the issues at stake, and exposes the nature of process liberalism overlying a regime of moral relativism.

This arrangement-protection against the absence of core values by some sort of mutually arranged "rules" for social interaction is the essence of the modern state-here, as well as in Europe.

And, it's very popular, even on FR.

This terrible case exposes the flaws of the ruling order as well as anything I've read.

[SusanD]

Let me add a new perspective: First, people in hospices are supposedly terminal. Terri and many brain injured adults are NOT terminal. Second, many of these profoundly disabled people can be cared for in residential settings at a much lower cost than is incurred now. They do not need and most do not want to be in hospital settings. The problem is that we have set up insurance and other medical funding systems that will pay for their care ONLY in expensive medical care settings. I only learned about this because I had a client who was struggling to keep an adult residential facility for brain injured adults open. There is NO public money to provide neighborhood residential care (which is less expensive) but Medicare money to pay for medical-- i.e . hospice and hospital and convalescent care settings. So taking care of people with feeding tubes is not necessarily that expensive. Even respirators and other types of assisted living can take place at home with non medical caregivers. The problem is we have never had a real societal discussion about his issue and have left it to the people who want to kill off the problem to pose this false dilemma

[gracex7]

We have become a society that 'loves' death. People are expendable, especially the "useless" or "unwanted". To paraphase an old Steve Taylor song "Baby Doe"....

A hearing is sought
The lawyers are bought
The court won't let her eat
The papers applaud
When judges play God
This woman is getting weak
They're drawing a bead
Reciting their creed
"Respect a person's choice"
I've heard that before
How can you ignore?
This woman has a voice

I bear the blame
Believers are few
And what am I to do?
I share the shame...
Where will it end?
Oh, no...

It's over and done
The presses have run
Some call the 'husband' brave
Behind your disguise
Your rhetoric lies
You watched a woman starve.