Liberation in Death

This week, a significant yet understated issue has emerged in liberal policy discussions: the prohibition of tobacco for individuals born after 2009. While this ban has stirred minimal controversy, the debate surrounding assisted dying has captured public attention and garnished fervent discussion. Notably, Kim Leadbeater, who is set to sponsor the private members’ bill on assisted dying, shared her support for a quote that champions individual freedom—a value she seemingly overlooked when voting to enact the tobacco ban. The juxtaposition of these two issues reveals a critical inconsistency in the liberal approach to individual liberty. The moral underpinnings advocating for assisted dying and the freedom to smoke stem from the same prerogative: protecting individual autonomy and the principle of lifestyle pluralism against the paternalistic tendencies of policymakers who seek to dictate personal choices.

Central to the argument for personal freedom regarding smoking is the notion that the habit, while arguably detrimental to health, cannot be deemed inherently worse. Similar to the everyday sacrifices people make for pleasure—such as choosing a tastier pastry or enjoying life’s small indulgences—the decision to smoke may also reflect a considered judgment about the trade-off between pleasure and longevity. Many people, including those who have successfully quit smoking, suggest that the pleasure derived from smoking may outweigh its associated risks. This highlights the idea proposed by philosopher J.S. Mill regarding the necessity of “experiments in living,” emphasizing that different individuals may weigh goods differently according to their unique experiences. The simplistic view equating longevity strictly with good life is overly reductionist and fails to capture the complexity of choices individuals make in pursuit of their own happiness.

When considering the contrasting positions held by proponents of both tobacco prohibition and assisted dying, an inconsistency emerges in their application of the longevity argument. Many Labour MPs, who would support a ban on tobacco are quick to dismiss the extreme focus on life preservation when discussing assisted dying. This shift suggests a rejection of the singular view that longevity alone determines ethical choices, undermining the validity of their initial stance on tobacco. Moreover, while some conservative thinkers cite a moral stance against assisted dying based on the sanctity of life—claiming that life is a divine gift—it is difficult to reconcile this view when it would subsequently invalidate the autonomy of those who choose suicide, presenting a significant moral inconsistency.

Critics of smoking and assisted dying often utilize a narrow conception of voluntariness, which implies that choices must be free from external pressures and authentic to the individual’s true self. This perspective is deeply flawed, as it fails to acknowledge the unavoidable influence of societal norms and personal circumstances. For instance, the pain accompanying addiction or the pressure of societal expectations does not negate a person’s freedom to make choices about their own life—be it choosing to end it or taking up smoking. The fundamental requirement for voluntariness lies in individuals understanding their choices and the consequences that follow. This could suggest that people under luxurious comforts also struggle with significant pressures in life decisions, reinforcing the idea that pressure does not inherently rob someone of their agency.

The pervasive notion that external pressures should warrant the prohibition of certain actions raises consequential issues. Many lawmakers who champion banning smoking through societal pressures seem unperturbed by the very similar pressures the state applies to influence public behavior, such as tax policies targeting smokers. By arguing against the protective framework of personal choice based on perceived external pressures, one opens the door to a rationale that could lead to excessive regulation of individual behavior across the board. Thus, the imposition of restrictions on personal choices under the guise of protecting individuals becomes a slippery slope, leading to a society where freedom is significantly curtailed in the name of protecting individuals from their own decisions.

Ultimately, the paternalistic ideology underpinning the prohibition of smoking and assisted dying presents a fundamental challenge to individual autonomy. If policymakers are allowed to regulate personal choices in order to protect individuals from what they perceive as poor decisions, it not only undermines personal freedom but may also incite a coercive overreach into various aspects of life. The defense of individual rights encompasses the freedom to navigate one’s life according to personal judgment—even when that involves making choices deemed misguided by others. It is essential to honor the moral principle that each person is entitled to pursue their own version of the good life, whether that encompasses smoking, assisted dying, or other personal choices, regardless of how others may view those decisions. In the realm of both life and death, freedom must prevail as a foundational principle that recognizes the intrinsic dignity of every individual’s right to self-determination.