Dilemmas of a Liberal

I consider myself a liberal and if I had to classify my political views, I would call them somewhat left of center. Given a liberal’s belief in freedom, equal rights for all and freedom of expression, it’s quite easy for me to form an opinion on a given situation. For example, I had no hesitation in saying that the Quran burning episode in the US was not a crime. Bad taste, yes. Crime no. Similarly, I don’t believe adultery should be a crime either. After all, it’s personal freedom and no where in the legal marriage contract does it prohibit extra marital sex. In fact, sex isn’t mentioned at all.

But there are a few cases that trouble me greatly as a liberal and I’m not very sure what is right/wrong. I was reminded of this when I was debating a complex topic on Sanjeev’s blog. These are cases which my liberal attitude says one thing, but my common sense tells me another. This confirms my belief that no “system” can ever blindly dictate complex issues such as governance. Each case is unique and though we can use ideology to guide our decision, the truth is never a simple matter.

So here are two cases which befuddle the liberal in me:

Should we allow people to have sex in public?

Public decency laws have always been in place no matter how progressive a country is. And the standards of public decency keep changing. In the 1900s for example, Annette Kellerman was arrested in Massachusetts just for wearing a swimsuit! Couples in India are regularly harassed for petty things like holding hands, though the Delhi High court held that kissing is an expression of love and arresting a couple for kissing was overstepping the boundary of what should be prohibited. Some people no doubt find kissing in public highly objectionable, but they need not look if they don’t want to right?

Do we allow this in public?
Do we allow this in public?

While I strongly feel that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don’t harm anyone else, how far do we take this? By this logic, a couple should be allowed to have sex in public as long as they don’t get in anyone’s way. People need not look if they don’t want to!

Now the bare principles of liberalism tell me that sexual acts in public should be legal. But my common sense tells me that we can’t legalize it. I’m not fully able to articulate why since logic tells me that there should be no problem.

After all, if we can allow a couple to hold hands and kiss in public, why not allow full fledged sex too?

That’s the first problem.

Should dangerous drugs be legalized?

As a liberal, I firmly hold that I have the right to harm myself if I want. It’s ridiculous that suicide is termed as an illegal act. What’s the punishment? Death? :D

The liberal in me says that it should be perfectly fine for a person to manufacture a murderously addictive drug such as methamphetamine in their home. After all, it’s their life and their body. In fact, selling the drug should be legal too – so long as it’s not sold to minors and the purchaser is fully aware of the risks. After all, we already have such a system in place for alcohol don’t we?

Again, though my liberal leanings tell me that crystal meth should be legal, my common sense tells me otherwise. Sure it’s dangerous, but a person should be allowed to drug themselves to death if they wish. Their body. And make the penalty for selling to children so high that professional dealers are discouraged and have effective law enforcement. Problem solved!

And yet it doesn’t sound right to me. Problem number two.

None of this means that liberalism isn’t probably the best we have so far – certainly more conducive to human growth and mental health than other ideologies. What it really means is that you can’t simply take a set of principles and blindly apply them like a mathematical theorem to determine what is the right thing to do. It means that reality is far more complex for its problems to be solved that easily.

Every situation requires an examination on its own merits. So though we can use ideologies such as liberalism as a useful guide, we have to be smart about it. We can’t worship any “system” that promises an instant and accurate resolution of complicated problems. If only life was that simple. It’s not. And our thinking shouldn’t be either.

Brings to mind Samuel Butler’s words in his awesome book “The way of all flesh:”

Extremes are alone logical, and they are always absurd, the mean is alone practicable and it is always illogical…. They say all roads lead to Rome, and all philosophies that I have ever seen lead ultimately either to some gross absurdity, or else to the conclusion already more than once insisted on in these pages …that sensible people will get through life by rule of thumb as they may interpret it most conveniently without asking too many questions for conscience sake.  Take any fact, and reason upon it to the bitter end, and it will ere long lead to this as the only refuge from some palpable folly.

What do you think of this post?
  • Agree (6)
  • Don't Agree but Interesting (2)
  • You're an asshole (2)

28 thoughts on “Dilemmas of a Liberal”

  1. Rainkiss

    I think you misunderstood my point. I didn’t propose legalising discrimination. The point I was making is that I don’t want the government to poke its nose in my personal business.

    And anyway, isn’t all the reservations legalising discrimination? I am against that, not for!

    Reply

Leave a Comment