Sunday, March 27, 2005

David Brooks on Relativism, Liberalism, and Terri Schiavo

[1] Brooks’s Central Claims
In today’s [oops. Now yesterday’s. Sorry. Too lazy to finish this yesterday.] NYT,
David Brooks incorrectly suggests that the position of most liberals on the Terri Schiavo case commits them to moral relativism. In this post I’ll explain what Brooks gets wrong, as well as note something important that he gets right.

Brooks writes:

“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 peoplewill 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.”

There’s something right and something wrong in what Brooks writes here.

What he’s right about is this: liberals have at least some weak tendency to slide into some incoherent mish-mash of moral relativism and moral nihilism. (Conservatives do, too, actually, but that’s a different story for a different time.)

He’s wrong, however, to say that this is an inevitable consequence of liberalism, or of the common liberal position on the Schiavo affair. This is more complicated, and has to do with messy details about reason, justification, complexity, borderline cases, and the nature of moral relativism and moral nihilism. These questions are difficult, and I don’t think we should blame people for getting confused about them, or for skimming over details when they are writing at the op-ed level. (That courtesy should be extended not only to Brooks, but to me as well, since it is almost inevitable that there will be some confusions and simplifications in what I’m about to write.)

First, some background.

[2] Objectivism, Relativism, Nihilism
Roughly, moral objectivism is the view that there are at least some objectively right and at least some objectively wrong answers to moral questions. (No, this is not a proper definition, but we’re operating at the op-ed level here. If we’re going to get anything done, we can’t worry about the really nice niceties.) Roughly, moral nihilism is the view that there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. Objectivism and nihilism are fairly easy to get at least a rough, intuitive grasp of.

Moral relativism is a far, far weirder position, and consequently much harder to get even a rough, intuitive grasp of. Roughly, moral relativism seems to be the view that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions, but these are relatively right and relatively wrong. Paradigmatically, their rightness or wrongness depends on individual belief or cultural tradition. This cannot be the view that nothing is really right, but that we call things right if we like them or if they are approved by our culture; that view is moral nihilism. Moral relativism is probably incoherent, and it would take more time than I have and more patience than you have to articulate a position that might legitimately be called relativistic—a position that does not ultimately degenerate either into covert objectivism or covert nihilism. So I won’t even try to do that here.

Fortunately, we don’t have to try to understand what moral relativism really is, since almost everyone—Brooks included—who talks about “relativism” probably really intends to be talking about nihilism. This becomes clear when we look carefully at Brooks’s central claim. Again, it is:
“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.”
Now, when someone says that some issue is a matter of “mere taste,” what they usually mean is that there are no truly right answers concerning that issue. To the question “which is better, chocolate or vanilla?” the answer is supposed to be: neither is better, it’s purely—and merely—a matter of taste. No right answers, no wrong answers. Nothing but preferences.

So, though Brooks identifies this as “relativism,” it’s apparently really nihilism he has in mind.

Correcting for this little problem and putting his principle in its appropriately general form we get:
(B) If we admit that there are decisions that ought to be left up to the
most-affected parties, then we must admit that moral nihilism is true.
There are two important claims at issue here, forming the antecedent and consequent of this conditional:
(A) In at least some cases, decisions ought to be left up to those
who are closest to/most profoundly affected by the decision.
And
(N) Moral nihilism is true: no answers to moral questions are either
right or wrong.
Brooks’s central claim, (B), is equivalent to the following:
(B’) If (A) is true, then (N) must be true.
That is to say, Brooks’s central claim is that, if we think that Schiavo-type decisions should be left up to the relevant family-members, then we are committed to moral nihilism. In the next section we will see that this is false.

[3] Objectivity, Indeterminacy and Complexity
Once we have the clarified version of Brook’s claim, (B’), in front of us it is, in fact, fairly obvious that it is false. There are at least two (and, in fact, more) reasons why one might leave a decision up to the most-affected parties.

First, one might be a nihilist. I suppose that reasoning goes something like this:
(1) Since there are no right or wrong answers about the case in question, there is no way to criticize any decision anyone might make, hence no reason to impose a decision on anyone.
However—and this is the crucial case--one might be an objectivist but recognize that the case in question is complex and difficult. This reasoning goes something like this:
(2) Although many moral issues are perfectly objective and determinate, there are at least some problem cases—borderline cases, or cases in which principles conflict, or cases of genuine indeterminacy, or cases which are just too complex for us to figure out. In such cases, reasonable people can disagree without obvious error. Since the most-affected people are most intimately acquainted with the facts in the case, and since they will be the ones who will have to live most closely with the consequences of the decision, they are the ones who should make it.
Since liberals may be (and usually are) reasoning as in (2), Brooks’s central claim, (B)/(B') is false. Thus (A) does not commit us to nihilism (or, for that matter, relativism).

[4]
Tolerance Etc.
Once we clear up this confusion, it’s easy to understand Brooks’s related worries about tolerance and suspension of judgment. If you accept (A), he writes:
“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.”
Although philosophically astute liberals are saying that society must allow people (or families) to make their own choices, we are saying this not because saying so (or thinking so) makes it so (relativism), nor because there are no right or wrong answers (nihilism), but, rather, because the relevant (and perfectly objective) facts and principles do not unequivocally and uniquely determine a conclusion in the relevant cases.

In the Schaivo case in particular, it is that fact that (as Brooks admits) life and death are joined by a continuum that makes the application of the relevant principles difficult or possibly even indeterminate. In a case in which A and B lie on a continuum, there simply will be no clear line between the two, and decisions under such conditions are inevitably hard.

But cases in which reason underdetermines the choice between two incompatible options are common and in no way entail relativism or nihilism. Think, for example, of cases in which doctors offer their patients a choice between two treatments because neither treatment is clearly better. For example, one treatment might be more effective than another but have much more serious side-effects. In some such cases neither decision will be obviously superior. Reasonable people can disagree here, not because there are no facts of the matter independent of our choices, but, rather, because the two treatments are--objectively speaking-- approximately equally good. Reason is not impotent or relative in such cases—it rules out, e.g., eating dirt or going to a witch doctor or taking neither treatment or standing on your head. In fact, it will rule out almost all possibilities, narrowing things down to a very narrow range of rationally permissible actions. But to expect reason somehow to magically distinguish between two equally good courses of action is to expect reason to be unreasonable—to make an arbitrary ruling when the evidence indicates that the options are equally well-supported. Having narrowed things down to a small set of approximately equally reasonable courses of action, however, there is nothing left for reason to do but stand back and say “you are permitted to do any of these things.” Note that no one thinks that oncologists are relativists or nihilists simply because they often offer their patients choices between aggressive, taxing treatments and more conservative, less taxing ones.

The claim that hard cases should be decided by those most closely affected is, in fact, a claim which forms a central part of at least some justifications of democracy. The Constitution sets down certain principles that are taken to be more-or-less beyond dispute (e.g. that we have rights to free speech and press, due process, etc.), and leaves the rest to us to decide. It’s not because the Founders were relativists, nor that they were nihilists who thought that there were no facts of the matter about e.g. whether theft should be a crime or what marriage should be like. It is, rather, at least in part that they recognized that as questions become more detailed and less clear, it is reasonable to leave the requisite judgment calls up to those who are most affected—i.e. the electorate. So if Brooks were right, our very commitment to democracy might commit us to relativism or nihilism.

[5]
The Schiavo Case as a Toss-Up
In the case of Ms. Schiavo, I think we have to admit that either keeping her body alive or allowing it to die is rationally defensible in this case. I actually believe that the latter course of action is notably more reasonable, but it’s a close enough call that I can understand how rational people of good will could believe otherwise. In cases where so much is at stake, such disjunctive conclusions are, unfortunately, difficult for some people to accept. As a result, people often end up arguing passionately for one course of action over another which is, objectively speaking, approximately equally well-supported. This is a blueprint for disaster when emotions run high.

[6] What Liberals Can Learn From Brooks
In Brooks’s defense, however, I think he is right that many philosophically unreflective liberals do tacitly presuppose the truth of nihilism or say things that seem to commit them to it. Brooks’s essay would have been stronger and more helpful if he’d have focused on this more modest and important point, warning liberals against the possibility of unconsciously sliding into indefensible meta-ethical positions. Instead, he mistakenly thinks that this slide is inevitable.

21 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

====================================
FROM wmr:

Bravo! Very nice job of teasing out what may be the philosophical argument beneath a typical example of punditry. One definite benefit of the exercise is a greater understanding of how difficult it can be to actually express the propositions, stated and unstated, which compose the typical casual, enthymemic argument in such cases.

And I use the words "may be" because another benefit is the possibility that Mr. Brooks, or someone in a similar position, may look at your proposed version of his argument and say, "That's not what I really meant to say." Then you have the fun of considering alternate propositions.
====================================

1:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The way I see it we, (human beings) being the imperfect creatures we are, claim moral objectivism, practice moral relativism most of the time and accuse those we disagree with of nihilism.

3:50 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With respect to the whole nihilism/relativism thing, I think I mentioned this way back in the early Haloscan days, but Larry Laudan's Science and Relativism would probably be right up your alley -- maybe less so the central quadralogue, but definitely the surrounding materials. Lots in there about how trying to use relativism to bolster your position -- even the sophisticated versions you find in, say, Richard Rorty, really undercuts most of what you want to say if you're a 'liberal.'

4:51 PM  
Blogger Mr. Nosuch said...

But David Brooks is dealing with a straw man:

"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."

The Schiavo case isn't about that at all. It's about an individual's right to choose whether or not to receive medical treatment. Period.

No one is saying "we should kill Terri because she's a vegetable and will probably always be that way." What is being said is that Terri would not wish to receive her current medical treatment.

The right of an individual to refuse treatment isn't morally weak, or relativist. It's a fundamental human right: the right of a person to have control over his or her body.

If I am diagnosed with a serious cancer, and doctors says I have little hope of surviving 3 months, but with aggressive treatment, I may live 6 with a seriously diminished quality of life (but certainly better than a vegetative state) I can say "no." Now if President Bush wants to convene a special session of Congress and my parents want to go to court to force me to do otherwise, then something seriously whacked is going on. And it has nothing to do with morality.

The only issue in the Schiavo case that can be questioned is how Terri's wishes for treatment are determined since she isn't communicative. And for this, the courts (not her husband) determined beyond a reasonable doubt that she wouldn't want this treatment.

And frankly, I find this reasonable (and I think the courts have followed due process up the wazoo on this). I mean seriously, would anyone opt for such treatment for themselves in the same circumstances?

Brooks is picking the wrong fight with this, but no surprise there.

5:06 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

You always find Brooks such easy pickin's, WS, it's not fair. :-)

The Schiavo case is too nuts right now to use as a paradigm. How about this beastly thing---the guy in Germany who wanted to be killed and eaten (not necessarily in that order) and the guy who accommodated him.

What Brooks might be trying to say is that the wishes of the eatee aren't paramount, and so do not make the eater's act permissible. To hold otherwise is indeed nihilistic or at least relativistic; we do not recognize a moral absolute, that the act of killing and eating someone is inherently wrong.

(BTW, you got a response over at my digs. Also, I noted Crooked Timber re-quoted you the other day. Cheers.)

7:07 PM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Izzat you messin' w/me blog, Mr. TB? Somebody is.

Very funny, awesome, & not a little bit creepy.

Still, if it's you, plz email me so I can further express my appreciation of such criminal genius.

10:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

yeah i heard about that cannibal thing in germany it was disgusting but it was the guys choice it is up to us what we do to ourselves and what we do with our lives we have to choos ebetween right and wrong but this terri case is just way over the top now.

5:40 AM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

Let me get this straight, tvd...you think that the cannibalism case is *less* crazy than the Schiavo case?

7:00 AM  
Blogger Tom Van Dyke said...

Verrry funny.

No, we as a nation are nuts. I thought the Germany case could be explored more dispassionately.

So far we have one vote for cannibalism. Slippery slope indeed.

4:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"(B) If we admit that there are decisions that ought to be left up to the
most-affected parties, then we must admit that moral nihilism is true."

Winston, I don't think that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premise here. What if I *objectively* believe, as a moral truth, that 'there are decisions that ought to be left up to the most affected parties'?

What we must admit then is not 'that moral nihilism is true', but that 'moral objectivity is true'. IOW, what if the moral position is the belief in a right to self-determination?

This brings into sharper focus a mistake Brooks makes, I believe. The moral case here is really whether one believes in an *absolute* (or "objective") or *relative* right to self-determination.

The courts in this case were never called upon to make any kind of moral decision whatsoever; that decision making power is vested in the patient in the applicable state law giving Schiavo the right to self-determination. What the court was seeking was a finding of fact - specifically, what were the patient's own wishes?

Now, if Brooks wants to argue that state law should proscribe or limit self-determination, that's his choice. I think that's a tough argument to make, and such restrictions could invalidate advance directives, living wills and the like.

I wouldn't say there's no precedent whatsoever, since states don't grant minors and those determined to be less than fully competent full autonomy in these areas. But in the case of a person determined to be of sound mind when he or she made the decision, you believe either 1)that self-determination should be permitted or not (objectivism) or 2)that it depends (relativism).

11:32 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

LC,
Right--(B) is Brooks's thesis, not mine. So I agree with you.

6:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Winston,

I re-read your post and I apologize for not having read carefully enough in the first place.

I see now that you were just formally constructing what you thought Broooks' argument was.

11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Winston. Should have read more carefully. After re-reading I see that you were just presenting a construction of Brooks' argument.

Mea culpa.

10:09 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And sorry for posting twice. Didn't see the other one show up.

10:10 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I daresay your conclusion that liberals have something to learn is a tad ludicrous.

First, the man is, himself, a moral black hole as his apologetics for torture quite clearly show.

Second, in the essay in question, he positions himself, quite clearly, as a moral nihilist, by pretending to stand above the fray and assess the differing utilities of the conservative "moral objectivist" and liberal "moral relativist" approaches. He attacks "moral relativism"-- I agree he really means moral nihilism-- not as wrong (either incorrect or immoral), but as dangerous and/or unsatisfying.

Third, this standing above the fray posture is a pretense, adopted entirely for the purpose of awarding the laurels of "moral objectivism" to his side. In short, he's a hack, hacking away as usual.

Fourth, Brooks completely dodges the issue of coersion, which is very much in the room.

Most importantly, it's not necessary for every citizen to be a philosopher. Most will have to make do with what amounts to an acceptable shorthand. When some right-wing hack, arguing in bad faith tries to pick it apart, we may fall back on a specialist to dismantle him (thank you).

3:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It does bother me some that you have not taken Brooks up on his larger challenge, which is to reconcile moral absolutism and individual rights. It is very difficult to see how his attack on the proposition that "society should be neutral and allow people to make their own choices...we should be tolerant and nonjudgmental toward people who make different choices" is reconcilable with any notion of morality based on, or even allowing for, the concept of "rights." My understanding of things is that rights-based moral theory is not the only game in town, but I hope it hasn't found itself completely on the ash-heap of history. It seems unlikely that the Constitution can lag far behind.

6:04 PM  
Blogger Winston Smith said...

A,
You know, I've never really felt the force of that objection, but some people have. I'll take your advice and cogitate on it for a spell.

6:57 AM  
Blogger WebsiteHosting1.com said...

**eLearning**

1:44 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Wow that´s a great blog that you have there, mine is slightly differnent but it basically covers the same topics.

I have a lymph node cancer site. It pretty much covers Cancer related stuff.

Check it out, you won´t regret it... Cheers.. Roger From Http://www.havecancer.com

8:55 PM  
Blogger Editor said...

Nice blog that you have here.

I have a breast cancer bracelet site. It pretty much covers Cancer related stuff.

Come and check it out if you get time :-) Cheers / Roger

9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web
nice web

12:50 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home