Inside the Current Issue

Rethinking Liberalism

Tony Monchinski

Princeton University philosophy professor Peter Singer.

Institutions effect individuals. For example, certain jobs have a tendency to bring out a conservative streak in those who work them. Consider law enforcement and education. When I was a kid, being a police officer was considered a noble profession. Cancel the manufactured 1950s image of peace officers walking their beat, whistling a tune and rescuing cats from trees. Due to the nature of their work, today's police come into contact with unsavory elements of society, deal with them harshly, extrapolate - however unfairly - stereotypes from said elements to the larger population bearing the same racial and class characteristics, thereby earning reps as "pigs" and "fascists" when in fact most police are themselves working class stiffs trying to make a better life for their families.

Teachers face a similar situation. This is a job I can speak to personally as I have been in special education for nearly a decade now. Just the other day in class one of my high school sophomores, functioning at the level of an elementary school child and known for acts of sexual aggression against hapless animals (categorized in his individualized education plan as "other health impaired"), blurted out, "I was a crack baby." To which another sixteen year old labeled "emotionally disabled" with a similar record of obstreperous behavior concurred, "So was I!" Lest you think they were kidding, they were not.

I can't get over it: 15 years ago I was in college working to better myself while someone was out there smoking their life away and getting pregnant, bringing children into the world that never stood a fair chance and now wind up in my classroom disrupting the education of other students, receiving free lunches because their families cannot afford to care for them, and often being abused by these same parents.

It would be easy to feel sorry for some of these kids, to make excuses for their actions. But that wouldn't let them off the hook for their bad behaviors. Understanding is not excusing, something some of my liberal brethren seem to lose sight of. I shudder to think that some of these children are sexually active. Every year I get to watch half a dozen teen girls get pregnant by teen boys (or older men) who do not stick around. Their babies are born with strikes against them and I suspect that fifteen years down the pike they'll be entering my classroom as their mother or father did before them. Thus, I have begun to wonder: why should these kids, the fathers as well as the mothers, be allowed to reproduce? If we feel no qualms "fixing" our dogs and cats so they cannot mate and populate, why is such a discussion when centered on the human animal anathema? To seriously entertain such questions calls for rethinking the cherished political doctrine of liberalism, which holds the individual inviolable. Questions pertinent to such an endeavor have been raised by Princeton's Peter Singer.

Being "liberal" in America today means something different than it once did. Liberal is invoked against "conservative," usually by people who consider themselves conservatives trying to defame liberals. This brand of liberalism under fire is reformist in that it seeks to use government as a means to address the ills of society. Think FDR, New Deal and welfare state. This is the type of liberalism people have in mind when they chastise "big" government and drool over shrinking it to the size of something that can be drowned in a bathtub. Yet liberalism and its seemingly comfy relationship with the state hasn't always been the case.

Liberalism emerged in the struggle between the monarchy and the bourgeoisie. For centuries, rulers were mostly men (kings) and their justification was divine right. The emerging middle class between lords and serfs in feudal times - the bourgeoisie - found this arrangement antithetical to their concerns, especially their business interests and the rights that guarantee such interests. Government by monarch was capricious and oppressive, and a protest against it was mounted by championing natural rights and natural law, what Jeremy Bentham - no conservative himself -- dismissed as "nonsense on stilts." If all men were created equal, the reasoning went, with natural rights to life, liberty and property, how could rule by one be justified? Simple: it couldn't. With the dawn of the English Civil War and the French Revolution, a new class came to power, championing the individual and his rights against the state, a class that benefited from a liberalism that advanced the interests of property owners.

The shift in the role of the state from manifest oppressor to potential corrector originated in the 19th century. Beginning in the early 1800s, the image of the state shifted from trampler to guarantor of individual liberties. The hypothetical state of nature came to be seen not as a playground of bliss where people frolicked in perfect freedom, but as an inconvenient arrangement where men and women were slaves to nature. Liberalism began to look at society and the state as a necessary compliment to the full attainment of one's individuality, not as a hindrance to its recognition.

Still, the idea of natural rights has continued to levy a significant weight on our current zeitgeist. Everyone, we are told, is created equal, if not in fact, then potentially. But is this truly so? Is my student, known for sexually torturing small animals really of equal worth to other students his age? I don't think so. It's not popular to say there are differences in worth between people, but discomfort doesn't mean we should ignore ideas.

This is where Peter Singer comes in. Singer's been doing his thing for years now, misunderstood and maligned by many. He's probably best known for his work in favor of non-human animal rights, but he has some interesting views that challenge our assumptions when it comes to infanticide, euthanasia, and abortion, views that rock the boat but are still essentially liberal. An excellent introduction to his thought is Writings on an Ethical Life (2000).

When today's social conservatives (whether George Bush and his ilk are true conservatives is a matter for another essay) uphold the sanctity of life, we should ask ourselves what they're talking about. Singer accuses them of "speciesism," of putting human animal life on a higher plain than other, non-human animal life. In Singer's words, "To give preference to the life of a being simply because that being is a member of our species would put us in the same position as racists who give preference to those who are members of their race." To a degree speciesism is understandable: we, the human ape, possess self reflective consciousness and can plan for the future. And we are aware that others like us are capable of the same. Singer's stance against speciesism informs his vegetarianism, opposition to animal testing, and his views on animal liberation.

Many non-human animals seem to be trapped in the present. Does a chicken or a cat plan for the future? It doesn't seem they do. Would either suffer if it knew that there would be no tomorrow? Contrast that to the condemned human being awaiting his moment with the executioner. Such rational ability may be beyond the grasp of our fellow two and four legged friends. Singer differentiates between persons and conscious beings. A person is a "being who is capable of conceiving of herself as a distinct entity existing over time," whereas a conscious being is "sentient and capable of experiencing pleasure and pain but [is] not rational and self-conscious and so not [a person]." You, by dint of reading this, are a person. Your dog, using this issue of The Advocate as a wee-wee pad, is a conscious being.

Many people will nod their heads in agreement with Singer up to this point, saying, "Oh yeah, I never thought of it that way." But what about "newborn infants and some intellectually disabled humans"? Infants don't seem to make plans for the future because they can't. Some humans with mental disabilities require constant supervision and assisted living. As infants and some disabled fall into the category "conscious being" and not "persons," Singer can justify infanticide and abortion. Infanticide in cases when "the life of an infant will be so miserable as not to be worth living," where "it is better that the child should be helped to die without further suffering."

Abortion serves as a precursor to infanticide. Singer's bifurcation between conscious being and person allows us to view abortion in a new light. Where one side views the aborted as a baby and the other side as a fetus, through Singer's lens we can view the gestation in the mother's womb as, indeed, at some point a conscious being with the potential to become a person if allowed birth and development. This might make it more uncomfortable for pro-choice activists who take refuge in the idea of a somehow not-quite human "fetus" being "aborted" rather than killed, but it will certainly equally shock anti-abortion activists who uphold the sanctity of all life.

Liberalism champions individuality. This can be traced directly back to the oppression of the many by the few. But has liberalism gone too far? Some will argue that institutions are the problem - and they may be right. If we lived in a better world, students like the two I mentioned would be cared for and not be viewed as a burden on taxpayers as they are now because of the welfare payments they receive and could conceivably receive for the rest of their lives.

We don't live in a perfect world. which makes Singer's line of thought and extensions from it all the more appealing. If infanticide was allowed in our country, maybe these kids wouldn't have matured. Sometimes it is easy to think that this would have been better for all concerned.

Singer operates from the utilitarian camp of liberalism, and he would have the individual decide whether she herself chooses abortion; that the individual determine whether his newborn child is better off dead so as to avoid suffering; that the individual determine that the life she lives is a "life not worth living" - because, say, of terminal illness - and should therefore have the right to end her life. The question of sterilization raises the hairs on our necks because it would be forced sterilization and those sterilized would be chosen by others. That, in a nutshell, is the conundrum: who has the right to decide who should and should not be sterilized, aborted, euthanized, etc.? Who has the right "to play god"?

It is beyond the scope of this essay to answer that last question, but I think some general outlines towards an answer are possible. First, any such decision cannot be levied against an entire race, gender, sexual orientation, class position or disability. We are right to condemn Hitler for his policies of forced euthanasia of Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, the disabled, and others. Every such decision should be on a case-by-case basis.

As it is, we play god and make decisions for other people all the time. When a woman chooses to have an abortion, does she consult with the life inside her? Of course she couldn't, because when the life inside her reaches "conscious being" status it is still many years away from being a true person. When we decide to pull the plug on someone in a persistent vegetative state, are we not deciding for them? Why would it be so wrong to ensure that twelve and thirteen year olds could not impregnate one another? With our medical technology, maybe such measures could be temporary, allowing the child at a later level of maturity to reverse the process and make reproductive decisions him or herself.

Some who read this will shake their heads in disgust, wondering how someone with views like this can be allowed to teach. I can understand such a criticism, but to anyone harboring such a viewpoint, I'd ask you to walk in my shoes for a day, to see the unwanted babies and what becomes of them, the lives they lead and the ways their lives impact those of others. We live in an industrial capitalist society where the power wielders are doing their best to roll back the social contract. We must mount a challenge to them, but experience has taught us that they aren't going to roll over overnight. The first to suffer directly from their ongoing assault will be those like the students I mentioned. Their suffering will be felt by indirect victims, people like you and I.

Are our institutions to blame? Partly. Theorists like Rousseau believed that people are born good and that society corrupts us. But I think this is too cheery a picture of human nature. Even if we usurp the capitalist state and institute something more humane and responsive, humans will still be capable of appalling behavior towards one another. Those who make life easier for others should have some say in the comportment of the lives of those who attempt to make life more difficult for others. In the short term this could be taken as justification for forced sterilization. Maybe all people are born with equal potential, but under current circumstances, all people do not maximize or are not allowed to maximize their potential. Furthermore, not everyone is of equal worth to society. Those who contribute and make life a better place for everyone concerned should be actively encouraged to keep on with what they're doing. Those who hinder the happiness and security of others should not be given a free hand.

Tony Monchinski is a PhD student in the Political Science department.