Life Versus Freedom
I had a discussion with a Libertarian recently. Though he was personally against abortion, he believed, as Libertarianism dictates, government should not force his particular moral beliefs upon others. So long as a choice is to be made, that choice should not be influenced by that government. I replied by stating that life has precedence over liberty. He quoted Patrick Henry. We all know the quotation, “Give me liberty or give me death!” This is to contradict me. According to the statement, liberty is more valuable than life, but it doesn’t mean that at all.
Briefly, as for me, life is more important than liberty because without life you have no liberty. I believe when the Declaration says that we have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, Life is listed first for that very reason. So, what then is to be made of the Henry quote?
It would seem that Henry would side with my conservative position over the libertarian one. Why is Liberty worth dying for? Is it worth dying for because we all need to have choices, even choice to do wrong (would dies for the right to commit murder?)? In reading Henry’s speech, this doesn’t seem to be the case. He repeatedly mentions a moral obligation for which liberty is a necessary but not alone sufficient condition for a life worth living. In talking about engaging with Britain, he invokes the notion of love, and how some of the British actions were not done out of love (presumably, then, malice). We see then that Liberty is simply a means to an end, not the end itself. The end is for a worthy life, a virtuous life. Life. So when Henry declares at the end of his speech, “Give me Liberty or give me Death!” it is assumed that his life is secure in the first place. The same cannot be said when consideration abortion. Therefore, to quote Henry is to take him out of context and make a disanalogous argument.
This helps us see why Libertarianism fails, generally. Its end is freedom and choice, but when it comes to the substance of those choices, Libertarianism remains silent. Conservatives don’t fall short here. They recognize that Liberty is a good thing, but only as a means to an end, and that end is a virtuous life. Not merely life, but virtuous life. Conservatives, therefore, present a better argument for freedom than Libertarians, and Henry would happily agree.
Briefly, as for me, life is more important than liberty because without life you have no liberty. I believe when the Declaration says that we have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, Life is listed first for that very reason. So, what then is to be made of the Henry quote?
It would seem that Henry would side with my conservative position over the libertarian one. Why is Liberty worth dying for? Is it worth dying for because we all need to have choices, even choice to do wrong (would dies for the right to commit murder?)? In reading Henry’s speech, this doesn’t seem to be the case. He repeatedly mentions a moral obligation for which liberty is a necessary but not alone sufficient condition for a life worth living. In talking about engaging with Britain, he invokes the notion of love, and how some of the British actions were not done out of love (presumably, then, malice). We see then that Liberty is simply a means to an end, not the end itself. The end is for a worthy life, a virtuous life. Life. So when Henry declares at the end of his speech, “Give me Liberty or give me Death!” it is assumed that his life is secure in the first place. The same cannot be said when consideration abortion. Therefore, to quote Henry is to take him out of context and make a disanalogous argument.
This helps us see why Libertarianism fails, generally. Its end is freedom and choice, but when it comes to the substance of those choices, Libertarianism remains silent. Conservatives don’t fall short here. They recognize that Liberty is a good thing, but only as a means to an end, and that end is a virtuous life. Not merely life, but virtuous life. Conservatives, therefore, present a better argument for freedom than Libertarians, and Henry would happily agree.
Comments
Post a Comment