Autonomy: Key Questions for Today's World

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Autonomy: Key Questions for Today's World

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 04:41 pm
Individual autonomy is a prized value in modern life. The capacity for self-governance is commonly seen as a crucial component of moral and psychological maturity, while the cultivation and preservation of the conditions for individual self-determination has been a central ambition of broadly liberal political arrangements. Recent legal developments have reinforced this long-standing tradition while also applying it in novel ways. The right to autonomy (often under the heading 'the right to privacy') has come to occupy a central place in European human rights law and in landmark decisions of the US Supreme Court, while in the UK legislation such as the Mental Capacity Act of 2005 has made key legal and medical decisions turn on the question of whether a patient has 'mental capacity' -- the capacity to make a decision for him- or herself. A guiding thread in all this is a conception of what we shall call autonomous judgement: the capacity for self-determination in making decisions.



But while these ideas have become familiar at the level of moral and political rhetoric, both in theory and in practice they present fundamental difficulties. What does it mean to be autonomous in the making of decisions? To what extent must an autonomous decision be a rational one? How can or should a clinical or legal practitioner, care-giver or social worker determine whether a particular judgement (as, for instance, about the discontinuation of medical care or the disposition of property) has been undertaken autonomously? Such determinations can have dramatic real-world consequences -- in determining whether a patient should be force-fed, for instance, or whether an executor should implement a will. But the proper basis for such determinations is far from clear. Indeed, in what sense can an act of judgement be a matter of self-determination at all, given that one of the ideals of good judgement is that a judge's decision should be determined by the best evidence?

These are all questions I feel need to be answered, and I would like your help in doing so. I will integrate my ideas into the thread as it progresses because I really want to see what you think rather than making any claims to be supported or refuted.
 
jeeprs
 
Reply Sun 2 May, 2010 09:13 pm
@rockpie phil,
the philosophical issue I have with 'autonomy' is that it in effect it makes the individual conscience the sole arbiter in many matters of conscience. In property issues and other matters that can be settled by civil law this is not much of an issue. But in many other areas there are, as you say, no clear grounds on which to make judgements. Such issues often come up in regards to (say) euthenasia, genetic engineering, minority rights, and so on.

My personal feeling is that the individual needs to recognise that there is a moral or ethical order by which their own conduct should be regulated. But as soon as you say that, you will be challenged on the basis that the existence of such a law is already a matter of individual judgement. Traditionally, moral law has been seen to be expressed or embedded in the Judeo-Christian religious culture. It is the move away from that culture towards a more secular outlook that highlights this exact problem.

On one had, I recognize the importance of individual conscience and rights, and would never suggest these be limited or curtalied. But on the other, in the absence of the recognition of a moral law, whether this be Christian, or some other - and there is not a great range value systems to select from, at the end of the day - then there is really no guarantee that the individual's choices will be made in good faith or with reference to anything other than naked self-interest. And I think we are certainly seeing evidence of that in the behaviour of the US Financial Industry. (About whom even ethically conservative contributors on this forum will say 'well, you can't blame them for wanting to make a buck....)

I think this is a conflict in the very constitution of democratic liberalism. I think that at the outset, democratic liberalism assumed an ethical code. But the assumed ethical code was very much embedded in the Judeo-Christian ethos. To the extent that this itself is now under threat in a 'militantly secular' society, I don't know if the conscience of the individual can still be seen as the foundation for ethical choices.

It is a very difficult question indeed and the subject of among many other titles.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Ethics
  3. » Autonomy: Key Questions for Today's World
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 11:17:18