Free to Be Me?

Autonomy, Duties, Walker Percy, and Hopes for the New Year.

Welcome, 2025 — a new year of boundless opportunities, a fresh start, and the freedom to be whomever we choose! Isn’t that great?

Maybe.

As we head into the new year, it’s clear that we’re living in a time when the concept of personal autonomy — the freedom to live as we wish, to love as we wish, to have our personal identity affirmed and valued by society — is a significant cultural feature. The first quarter of the 21st century has seen us throw off the chains that bound us. The cases of George Floyd and others fired the flames of a larger movement to abolish the regulation of individuals and families as represented by such longstanding institutions as police and child protective services. Oregon’s Legislature in 2021 gave drug addicts the freedom to overdose on fentanyl without fear of arrest, their drug use supported by taxpayer-funded harm reduction programs offering free needles, pipes, and Narcan. Chronic homelessness increased dramatically, aided by advocates for the homeless and courts that found a “right” to be homeless. Among the up to 40,000 homeless individuals who in 2023 froze to death, were murdered, or overdosed on America’s streets were many who desperately needed help and treatment but whose “right” to bodily autonomy gave them the right to refuse help as they wallowed in their own feces on the sidewalk.

The movement for personal autonomy extended to the young, as advocates told schoolchildren that if they weren’t happy being born a girl, they could simply change genders and stop the biological process of puberty. For those unhappy with life in general, the state could support your ending it no matter the reason and without questioning whether you might be making a mistake due to autism or mental illness.

This past year saw some pushback to this movement, with the Supreme Court finding no right to be homeless and taking up the issue of medicalizing children who are struggling with their identities. But the larger movement towards radical individual autonomy, it seems, has forgotten a basic principle of individual rights: for every right, there is a corresponding duty. Writing in the Boston Review a few years ago, Samuel Moyn noted the dearth of any discussion of “duties” in our modern dialogue on individual rights. As he noted, it is a long-recognized tenet of international law that for every right recognized in such treaties as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), there is a state duty to respect, protect, and fulfill those rights.

Societal recognition that the concept of individual rights means we have duties and obligations to other individuals would go far in reeling in the rampant personal autonomy movement. Autonomy is only half of the rights issue; the other half involves the responsibilities of the State to the individual and of individuals to each other and to the community. As Article 29 of the UDHR clarifies, while each of us has equal rights, we also have duties to others in our community, including the duties of respecting “the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

Here are three examples. Under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, those with disabilities such as mental illness and autism have the right to bodily integrity and independence. But they also have the right to be free from exploitation and violence, which means the State has a responsibility to protect a mentally ill, homeless individual from exploitation and harm even when he or she may not want treatment or wants to end his or her life. Under the CRC, States are obligated to ensure that all decisions are made in a child’s best interests, that the child is provided the maximum opportunity to develop and flourish, and that the child is protected from those who would exploit him or her. As a result, we have a responsibility to protect children from making life-altering decisions they may not fully understand. Women, as UN Special Rapporteur Reem Alsalem has noted, have the right protection from violence in sports. This right obligates sport-regulating bodies to ensure that women are not forced to compete against stronger biological males.

These obligations require that our society actively work to protect the rights of individuals, especially the vulnerable — simply saying, “It’s your choice” isn’t an option.

At a training I did recently for judges working with children, we discussed what would be required for us to fulfill a child’s right, under CRC Article 6, to life and the State’s obligation to “ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child.” And what does the UDHR require regarding our duties to respect the rights and freedoms of others and meet the “just requirements” of society?

A partial answer, I believe, can be found in a great novel that my youngest child is currently reading: Walker Percy’s The Last Gentleman. It’s a novel (one key to my formation as an adult) about an educated young man who is drifting without purpose and without real connection to a community. He revels in his autonomy because every possibility is open to him. He has freedom to do whatever he chooses. Or does he?

Through the course of the novel, Percy’s protagonist forms connections with people who need him and with people he needs. He realizes he lives in an interconnected world where his possibilities, for better or worse, are constrained by his relationships with others. But while relationships constrain his freedom, it’s by connecting with others that he finds his purpose. “What happens to a man to whom all things seem possible and every course of action open?”, Percy asks. “Nothing of course.”

Percy’s answer to the problem of personal autonomy is that while we have rights, we also have obligations to others. We are not entitled to simply assert our individual rights regardless of how our actions affect those around us. We can’t simply do what we want no matter the consequences for ourselves or others, nor can we sit by idly while others self-destruct.

Absolute personal autonomy sounds like fun, but it’s a recipe for a narcissistic society. In 2025, I hope our society can focus more on the fact that we are duty-bearers with obligations to look out for each other — for all the other 8 billion people in the world, and especially those vulnerable individuals closest to us.

Happy New Year.