THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY:

[B]rooks' essay isn't really about the debate over assisted suicide. Rather, the real subject is what sort of liberal society we want to live in. In Brooks' telling, philosophical liberalism, built upon a foundation of individual liberty, is a very good idea. But if taken too far--as he argues happened in the case of MaiD--this very good idea can land us in a hellscape in which we destroy community and any sense of obligation to care for one another. We need a better alternative. 

This line of thinking is not new. We hear critiques of individualism from both progressive and new right critics of liberalism. But Brooks' critique is neither right nor left. He is offering--and here I sincerely aim to pass the intellectual Turing test--a philosophically liberal critique of philosophical liberalism. 

And if that's right, it's incumbent upon philosophical liberals to take the critique seriously and not merely write it off as Brooks having taken a turn to the left or having joined the ranks of the post-liberal right. Either move would be inaccurate. Worse, either would be an act of intellectual laziness, leaving behind an opportunity to understand something important about the nature of the liberal project.

The case I want to make is that liberalism's core principle of individual autonomy is not a recipe for social decay. It is an essential ingredient in what makes liberal societies humane sites of meaning-rich social connection in which capable but fallible human beings cooperate, adapt, and learn. 

First, let me define my terms. By "liberalism" I mean the grand project of political, economic, intellectual, and civic freedom. 

Tweet   @brothersjudd