Machan's Musings - Ethics vs. Politics in Million Dollar Baby
by Tibor R. Machan
Who has a right to one’s life? The individual whose life it is, that’s who. And what does that entail? That it is up to that individual whether to strive to continue to be alive, to thrive, or to discontinue living, to stop thriving and discontinue living.
But having a natural (and justly protected legal) right to end one’s life doesn’t make the act itself morally right. One has rights to do what is wrong—just think of the right to freedom of speech, how often when it is legitimately exercised what comes out is wrong! The right to be wrong is, however, a right, nonetheless.
And it is also true that sometimes ending one’s life can be the right thing to do, although there is probably no general account of when that would be. Living in constant, unrelenting extreme pain could qualify—no one is obligated to carry on in such a state unless there is a decent prospect of recovery. One may also risk one’s life for various purposes that merit such a risk, such as protecting the freedom of one’s country or the safety of one’s loved ones or, for some folks, even going mountain climbing.
In the Clint Eastwood directed movie, Million Dollar Baby, this issue comes up quietly, as it did in Whose Life is it Anyway?, which starred Richard Dreyfuss some years ago and explored the topic head on. Whether the answer reached is the right one is, of course, one of the vital questions in morality and also of medical ethics. But there is first the question of whether anyone has the right to end his or her own life, with or without assistance from someone else.
The answer to this last question is a clear cut “Yes.” It is one’s own life and however wrong it may be, or right, it is up to one to decided whether to end it. Of course, there are some complications—if one has obligations to others, say one’s children or creditors, the answer is different since one has made commitments one must first fulfill. But all rights can face such complications—I have a right to my property but if I have used it as collateral for a loan, that changes things. I have a right to my liberty but if I chose to be married, some of my liberties have been freely restricted by me.
Still, the fundamental issue is the same: It is the individual who has the right to decided whether to live or die since it is he or she who has an unalienable right to life. To defend this idea is itself not so simple, especially since there are many views contrary to it. Some hold that the individual belongs to humanity—communists thinks so. Or to society—socialists believe that. Or the community—communitarians hold that view. Or to God—which is the view of various religions. Some even believe that there is no individual at all—some eastern philosophies subscribe to this idea.
This isn’t the place to work out the issue in full but it is possible to remind ourselves that at least in the American political tradition, derived from the philosophical works of classical liberals—most importantly John Locke—one has an unalienable right to ones’ life. One is sovereign, self-ruling. And that implies that no one else may interfere with one’s authority to guide one’s life as one will, be this for good or for ill, so long as no one else’s rights are being violated in the process.
Accordingly, Million Dollar Baby depicts what must be understood as a sound political or legal doctrine, even if one can take issue with its morality. Sadly, few make this distinction. Few are now taught in school that what the Founders meant by all of us having equal unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among other things, means that everyone must accept everyone’s ultimate authority about matters as controversial as whether one will live or die and whether one will seek assistance in either task.
Discuss this Article (2 messages)
|
