[lit-ideas] Re: SOS: Autonomical risk
- From: John Wager <john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 May 2006 16:05:58 -0500
Robert Paul wrote:
Lawrence Helm wrote:
. . . . A member-in-good-standing at a local church is going to be
one who conforms to the beliefs and practices of that church. To
call a church member “autonomous” is almost a contradiction in
terms. If someone disagrees with the doctrine and practices of his
church, he will almost certainly not remain a member. He cannot be
/utterly /autonomous and be a conscientious member at the same time.
I'm not sure why not. A person could certainly choose to be the sort
of person who adheres to the beliefs and carries out the practices of
a church to which she belongs. (Or not.) To be autonomous doesn't
entail that one be a rebel or an iconoclast. Suppose I'm on a
committee to revise the dress code for Mutton College, and that the
committee's decisions are arrived at by a simple majority vote. I
favor green socks and purple waistcoats but eventually the committee
decides on purple socks and green waistcoats. Have I somehow lost my
autonomy if I abide by this decision, or must I, to preserve it, wear
green socks and a purple waistcoat anyway?
A bit of Kant might help here (but only a bit):
"Nomous" is related to "norm." To be "auto nomous" is to give the norms
or laws to one's self, that is, to follow them rationally rather than
out of habit, or out of belief, or out of hope for reward. For Kant, an
autonomous person might very well be the LEAST rebellious person around,
if by rebellious one meant not following a rational argument to its
rational conclusion in action. It would be extremely difficult to tell
from the outside whether a person was following a norm "autonomously" or
"heteronomously."
To take the issue of the Mutton Dress Code as an example: One could
autonomously decide that abiding by the majority's decision is the
proper action. Or one might autonomously decide that the issue of
garish colors was more fundamental and NOT abide by a majority vote;
both of these could be autonomous decisions, because they were derived
from a logical analysis of duties. But if, when it came time to emerge
from the closet and show those purple socks to the world, one decided to
abstain from purple out of fear of ridicule, or out of the promise of
financial reward, or out of an irrational whim, then one would not be
acting autonomously.
--
-------------------------------------------------
"Never attribute to malice that which can be
explained by incompetence and ignorance."
-------------------------------------------------
John Wager john.wager1@xxxxxxxxxxx
Lisle, IL, USA
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
