Liberation Through Death

This week, a significant yet understated issue emerged for liberals: the prohibition of tobacco for individuals born after 2009. While this regulation barely sparked controversy, the upcoming debate on assisted dying has garnered substantial attention. Kim Leadbeater, who is set to introduce a private members’ bill on assisted dying, recently retweeted an endorsement of individual freedom, asserting that every person should have the liberty to live as they choose. Paradoxically, Leadbeater also supported the tobacco ban. The underlying moral reasoning for taking a stance on both tobacco use and assisted dying appears consistent, centering on the principles of individual freedom and lifestyle choices. The argument urges the necessity to defend true voluntariness and individual freedoms against the paternalistic ideologies that misinterpret or dismiss these concepts.

Central to the argument in favor of smoking is the notion that it is unjust to ban something purely because it is deemed harmful. The idea of sacrificing longevity for pleasure raises the question of whether such choices are inherently irrational. Analyses suggest that, similar to choosing a bakery based on the tastiness of its pastries, smokers like Sammy Davis Jr. may find the pleasure of smoking outweighs its health risks. Particularly for those who quit smoking before age 40, where the majority of smoking-related disease risks dissipate, a ban seems unjustifiable. This perspective supports a pluralistic understanding of personal goods and choices—what John Stuart Mill characterized as “experiments in living.” The one-dimensional focus on longevity fails to accommodate the multifaceted nature of individual choices involving pleasure and risk.

In contrast, the argument favoring assisted dying invokes the concept of voluntary choice, which many who support the tobacco ban may find inconsistent with their stance on assisted dying. The conversation often pivots around whether individuals in desperate situations, such as terminal illness, can genuinely choose to end their lives without external pressures contaminating their autonomy. Critics of assisted dying sometimes argue that true voluntariness requires individuals to make choices free from external pressures or addictions. Nevertheless, reliance on an overly strict interpretation of voluntariness could undermine the agency of individuals living with severe, chronic conditions who are understandably driven to seek relief. If the acute withdrawal pain from quitting smoking does not negate a smoker’s freedom to choose to smoke, then why should the suffering of terminally ill patients negate their choice to die?

Moreover, concerns about external pressures complicate discussions on voluntary choice. Some argue that any form of societal or interpersonal pressure can undermine the legitimacy of personal decisions. However, if this assessment holds, a systematic prohibition on socially influenced activities would bring about chaos, as social pressures permeate human interactions. There must be a distinction between acceptable social influence and coercive pressure that violates individual rights. Hence, the morality of influencing someone’s choices does not necessarily warrant restriction if the pressures do not infringe upon their fundamental rights or freedoms.

The crux of the opposition to both assisted dying and smoking bans often stems from paternalistic beliefs, which hold that government should intervene to prevent individuals from making decisions believed to be detrimental to their well-being. This paternalistic inclination begs the question of where such governance ends; if the state can dictate personal choices surrounding smoking and assisted dying, will similar oversight extend to diet, lifestyle choices, and personal relationships? Such governance promotes a dangerous precedent that undermines personal agency, positing the state as the final arbiter of individual good, rather than respecting individuals as agents of their own lives.

Ultimately, the argument posits that individuals have the inherent right to pursue their good in their preferred way, regardless of whether these choices align with societal or governmental notions of well-being. The opposition to smoking and assisted dying tends to reflect a rejection of this fundamental freedom, which liberals hold dear. Denying these rights creates room for excessive state control over individual lives, undermining the respect everyone deserves as autonomous individuals. While concerns about addiction and societal pressure have merit, they should not lead to the overreach of paternalistic policies that infringe upon liberty. The doctrine of individual freedom must remain paramount in discussions about life and death, emphasizing the right of individuals to make their own choices, no matter how misguided they may seem to external observers.