The moral autonomy it is the capacity of a rational human being to be able to make decisions by applying the law of objective morality in himself, but in a voluntary, self-conscious, authentic, independent and free of influence or interpersonal or intrapersonal interventions.
This concept has been well developed and debated among philosophers, religious, theologians, politicians and psychologists. The theme came to take on strength especially in the era of Illustration (18th century), with significant contributions from the well-known Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant .
His theory of morality affirms that equally satisfactory results will be obtained by applying the same methods of traditional logical-intellectual reasoning in problematics of moral philosophy.
Under these parameters, only the ratio of each human being is sufficient to differentiate the good from the bad and then act responsibly according to that moral will.
It is the belief that the individual is totally free in himself to decide the best course of ethical action.
What do I decide the good and the bad?
Moral autonomy completely denies that supernatural agents such as deities have determined any set of rules about good and bad and have given it to humans to have moral sensitivity and to be their guide in life.
The theory criticizes that when seeking the moral truth in the religion or the divine one was not going to obtain the same answer for all; was variable.
To determine the good of the bad, one needs only to use reason along with a sense of consideration towards the rest of the people.
Moral obligations are derived from pure reason. In that sense, morality is defined as a constant that obviously has the same answer for all. That is, moral principles were universal and applicable to every human being.
What is morally autonomous and what is not (according to Kant)
The theory of moral autonomy distinguishes decisions or actions that are taken from a judgment of morality to those made for other non-moral reasons, such as based on desires, interests or emotions.
Kant explained this with the existence of moral imperatives in the lives of all human beings.
The imperatives are a kind of implicit commands of the day to day of the people with whom the reasonings are developed to decide how to act and why to act.
Hypothetical imperatives
It is the representation of practical subjective need (for himself or in society) or the will to take a certain course of action as a means if one wants to achieve an end.
The ultimate end is motivated by inclinations, desires or interests, which can be loaded with emotions.
The decision would not be morally autonomous because there are agents external to the reason interfering or influencing the person. Would heteronomy , the opposite of autonomy.
This category also includes actions that are taken (or stopped) to avoid sanctions or unpleasant situations and those that are taken (or are forced to be taken) under coercion. These last two are carried by the threat or fear of consequence.
Take the following examples:
- Respecting laws or not doing illegal acts not to be captured by the police
- Working to be a millionaire
The problem with hypothetical imperatives boils down to that if the person does not care about the end, then there is no reason to take that course of action. It is then said that these imperatives have nothing to do with morality.
According to the previous examples we would have the following moral problems:
- If there is no fear of the police or even jail, it would not matter to decide to steal or kill
- If there is no interest in being a millionaire (or money), you can choose not to work
Categorical imperatives
They represent the will to decide for a course of action based solely and exclusively on reason. It is the objective necessity (to act) in itself totally independent of its relation with an end or the ends associated with the one and of the desires, interests, emotions, etc.
For Kant, working under categorical imperatives is equal to being morally autonomous or having an autonomous will; the will of good morals, to do good in itself and not for good results derived.
Taking the same examples, the categorical imperatives would be more or less like this:
- Stealing and killing itself is wrong or morally wrong, and so it is in the laws. It is wrong to break the law.
- It is a moral obligation to contribute to the society in which we live through work, since work is the basis of the sustainability of the society in which we all live. The work, produce money or not, is considered the contribution of the individual to the social group.
The moral development of the individual (Piaget and Kohlberg)
Theories of cognitive development in evolutionary psychology have made other important contributions concerning moral autonomy.
These affirm that in the stages of the childhood of the human being the reasonings are developed in a heteronomous way, they obey the norms because an authority orders it without exceptions. Failure to comply is punished.
During the growth and maturation of the person, it is possible to develop an autonomous reasoning, where the rules carry a process of interpretation, acceptance, internalization and can be discussed or reasoned.
Some theories place this transit in the adolescence (Piaget), others define the stages in more detail and adding that not every human being manages to reach adult being morally independent in its totality (Kohlberg).
These stages of Kohlberg or stadiums are:
The preconventional , where the rules are met to avoid sanctions (egocentric) or to obtain rewards (Individualist). Children occupy these stages.
The conventional , where respect for norms is a function of maintaining social conventions, either to fit into society (gregaria), or to maintain the existing (communitarian) social order. Most adults arrive and stay in these stages.
The postconventional , where rules are followed by reasoning based on moral principles and laws.
Only as long as universal values are respected, norms are met. Otherwise, it is morally right to disobey (universalist). This last stage only managed to reach 5% of adults.
References
- Christman, John (2003). Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from dish.stanford.edu (Spring 2015 Edition)
- Alfonso Llano Escobar (1993). Moral Autonomy. Time. Recovered from eltiempo.com
- Lexmilian De Mello (2015). What is moral autonomy? - Quora. Recovered from quora.com
- Maria Mejia (2016). Why do you think that moral requirements are categorical imperatives? (Thesis). Georgia State University. Retrieved from scholarworks.gsu.edu
- Larry Nucci. Moral Development - Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development and Education. StateUniversity.com Retrieved from education.stateuniversity.com
- Antonio Olivé (2009). Kant: The moral theory. Marx from Zero. Recovered from kmarx.wordpress.com
- Tim Holt (2009). Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives. Moral Philosophy. Retrieved from moralphilosophy.info