Freedom and constraint.(Letters)(Letter to the Editor)

SIR: In his latest foray, "Don't You Worry About That" (March 2004), E.D. Watt dismisses as mere rhetoric the well-known, and widely-accepted, liberal position that the state should show a degree of deference to people's highly personal choices about such things as their sexual and family relationships--interfering only where there is a compelling reason.

As it happens, my own contributions to Quadrant, which Watt chooses to compare to Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen's odd (though surprisingly effective) media style, have not attempted to justify the liberal position all the way down to some kind of metaphysical bedrock. Whatever may be said about the foundations of liberal thought, I have largely confined myself to presenting arguments as to what follows from the liberal position for various questions of public policy in bioethics and related areas of practical philosophy.

In the space of a letter, even a rather long one, I certainly cannot repeat what I have previously argued at considerable length. By way of summary, my articles have highlighted the wide public and political support or--at least lip-service--given to the liberal position. Against this, I have juxtaposed the prevalence of illiberal laws and policy proposals. In some cases, the resulting incongruity seems to result from a zealous paternalism. In others, it is caused by attempts to impose a particular ideal of the good life on people who, according to liberal theorists, are entitled not to accept it.

Watt attempts to show that there is no such thing as allowing people in any society greater or lesser individual freedom. There is always, so he says, merely a trade-off of liberties. If this is correct, it follows--for example--that it makes no difference, in terms of individual freedom, whether or not the law forbids wandering down the street eating an ice cream cone. The decision must be made on other grounds.

Very well, in his 1994 book The Hungry Soul, the prominent American bioethicist Leon R. Kass elaborates how disgusting it is, at least to him, to see people eating like "dogs" in public places, such as city streets, especially if they use their teeth to tear off pieces of food. Worse, Kass explains, some indulge in the "catlike" activity of licking at their scoops of ice cream. Imagine, then, that one of our state legislatures in Australia decides tomorrow to ban eating ice cream cones in the street. Any catlike licking at the ice cream Will aggravate the offence. Here is the wisdom of repugnance in action.

According to Watt's logic, this law would not lessen individual freedom. Watt could, after all, point out all of the following. Prior to the enactment of the law, I was able to eat my ice cream in many public places without harassment from the police. If ...