WHAT IS MORAL AUTONOMY? - CULTURE VOCABULARY - 2025

The moral autonomy is the ability of a rational human being to be able to make their decisions applying the law itself of objective morality, but on a voluntary, self-conscious, authentic, independent and free from influence or interpersonal or intrapersonal interventions.

This concept has been quite developed and debated among philosophers, religious, theologians, politicians and psychologists. The theme came to gain strength especially in the time of the Enlightenment (18th century), with significant contributions from the well-known Prussian philosopher Immanuel Kant.

His theory of morality affirms that equally satisfactory results would be obtained, when applying the same methods of logical-intellectual reasoning traditional in problems of moral philosophy.

Under these parameters, only the reason 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 to decide the best ethical course of action.

What do I decide the good and the bad?

Moral autonomy completely denies that supernatural agents such as deities, have determined some set of norms about good and bad and have given it to humans to have moral sensitivity and be their guide in life.

The theory criticizes that when seeking the moral truth in religion or the divine, the same answer was not going to be obtained for everyone; it was variable.

To determine the good from the bad, one needs only to use reason together with a sense of consideration for other people.

Moral obligations are derived from pure reason. In this sense, morality is defined as a constant that, obviously, has the same answer for everyone. That is, the 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 between decisions or actions that are taken as a result of a judgment of morality and those that are 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 which the reasoning is 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 an end is to be achieved.

The ultimate goal is motivated by inclinations, desires or interests, which can be charged with emotions.

The decision would not be morally autonomous because there are agents external to reason interfering or influencing the person. It would be heteronomy, the opposite of autonomy.

This category also includes the actions that are taken (or are not taken) to avoid sanctions or unpleasant situations and those that are taken (or are forced to be taken) under coercion. These last two are driven by threat or fear of consequence.

Let's take the following examples:

• Respect the laws or do not do illegal acts so as not to be caught by the police
• Work to be a millionaire

The problem with hypothetical imperatives comes down to if the person doesn't care about the end, then there is no reason to take that course of action. So it is 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 rob 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 need (to act) in itself totally independent of its relationship with an end or the ends associated with it and of desires, interests, emotions, etc.

For Kant, acting under categorical imperatives is the same as being morally autonomous or having an autonomous will; the will of good morals, to do good in itself and not for the good results derived.

Taking the same examples, the categorical imperatives would go more or less like this:

• Stealing and killing itself is wrong or morally wrong, and that is why it is in the law. 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 for the sustainability of the society in which we all live. Work, whether it produces 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 regarding moral autonomy.

These affirm that in the stages of the childhood of the human being the reasoning develops in a heteronomous way, they obey the norms because an authority orders it without exceptions. If it is not fulfilled there is a punishment.

During the growth and maturation of the person, the development of autonomous reasoning is possible, where the norms carry a process of interpretation, acceptance, internalization and can be discussed or reasoned.

Some theories place this transit in adolescence (Piaget), others define the stages in more detail and adding that not every human being manages to become an adult being morally independent in its entirety (Kohlberg).

These Kohlberg stages or stadia are:

The pre-conventional, where the rules are met to avoid sanctions (egocentric) or to obtain rewards (Individualist). Children occupy these stages.

The conventional, where respect for the rules is based on maintaining social conventions, either to fit into society (gregarious), or to maintain the existing social order (communitarian). Most adults arrive and stay in these stages.

The post-conventional, where the rules are followed by reasoning based on moral principles and laws.

Only as long as the universal values ​​are respected, the norms are fulfilled. Otherwise, it is morally correct to disobey (universalist). This last stage is only reached by 5% of adults.

References

1. Christman, John (2003). Autonomy in Moral and Political Philosophy. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Recovered from plato.stanford.edu (Spring 2015 Edition)
2. Alfonso Llano Escobar (1993). What Moral Autonomy. Time. Recovered from eltiempo.com
3. Lexmilian De Mello (2015). What is moral autonomy? - Quora. Recovered from quora.com
4. Maria Mejia (2016). Why does kant think that moral requirements are categorical imperatives? (Thesis). Georgia State University. Recovered from scholarworks.gsu.edu
5. Larry Nucci. Moral Development - Lawrence Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development and Education. StateUniversity.com Recovered from education.stateuniversity.com
6. Antonio Olivé (2009). Kant: The moral theory. Marx from Zero. Recovered from kmarx.wordpress.com
7. Tim Holt (2009). Hypothetical and Categorical Imperatives. Moral Philosophy. Recovered from moralphilosophy.info