For Kant, when rational beings pursue morality and the kingdom of ends, they elevate themselves above the demands of nature and of their material circumstances. Thus, they establish the independence, or "autonomy," of their will (Groundwork 440). By contrast, when a person’s goals are determined by something other than universal law, their will is "heteronomous" in that it depends on external factors in determining its goals. Kant titles autonomy of the will as "the supreme principle of morality" and he describes heteronomy of the will as "the source of all spurious (fake) principles of morality" (440-441).
There have been philosophical systems that have made the mistake of advancing bases for morality that would in fact render the will heteronomous. Empirical principles (principles good with qualification) cannot be the basis of morality, because they are always heteronomous. Even when the goal is personal happiness, concerns about particular outcomes or courses of events can never have the status of universal laws of nature. Rational principles like the will of the divine are likewise heteronomous because they do not come from pure concepts of reason in that we have no notion of divine perfection other than that which we derive from our own moral concepts (443). Anytime someone does something in order to attain something else--whether that something else is happiness or perfection or the satisfaction of some physical need or desire--the person's will is determined by that something else; the will is heteronomous and the corresponding maxim of the action makes sense only in the particular and not as a universal law of nature. The basic idea that moral actions are undertaken for the sake of duty alone seems to be based on a notion of the autonomy of the will.
I have a problem with Kant’s position though because it seems too theoretical. Kant seems to think that reason is something that people can use to develop universal laws and moral principles. I feel that there are different ideas that make sense to people of different cultures. I'm thinking universal means universal to Kant and this is hard for me to grasp. Kant's notion of "autonomy" is either unclear or unlikely. Kant event admits that his notions of "autonomy" and of a "kingdom of ends" are concepts that we cannot be proven in real life but with pure practical reason. It makes sense to "Always choose in such a way that in the same volition the maxims of the choice are at the same time present as universal law" (440). However, I find this difficult to accomplish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
After reading your post, I believe you have an accurate understanding of both the autonomy and heteronomy of the human will as expressed by Kant. I would like to expand further on this topic by explaining more about the independence, or freedom that Kant believes humans achieve when they pursue pure morality. As we know, a will is the capacity which gives humans the ability to act according to a law or maxim. As Kant states, “only a rational being has the power to act according to his conception of laws…and thereby has he a will” (Groundwork 412). These maxims must consist of laws which apply to both individuals and all of nature on all occasions, unconditionally, without exception; in other words, universal. This is the only way in which the categorical imperative can be satisfied, or Kant’s belief that one should “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law” (421). For Kant, moral law is always determined by reason and is universal; it can never be determined based on specific occurrences.
If we are able to act in such a way that our will becomes natural, universal law, we achieve autonomy. According to Kant, our wills are “legislators of natural law” (434). As we discussed in class, Kant believes we are actually freest when we act according to the law or give laws to ourselves, even though that may seem contradictory. The fact that our actions are determined by certain constraints or principles actually allows us to have freedom of the will. If there were no constraints or principles on which morality was based, it could never be universal because it could be different for everyone.
I would like to discuss heteronomy in a little more detail. I hope that I have already established that heteronomy has to do with principles outside or external to the will and autonomy has to do with principles internal to the will. In Groundwork 442-444, Kant discusses three external determinations of the will. The first being happiness which “bases morality upon incentives rather than undermine it rather than establish it and that totally destroy its sublimity” (442). Moral feeling is another idea, which is external but is closer to morality than happiness. The final topic is among rational principles of morality and that is the ontological concept of perfection. Kant says that this concept of perfection is “empty, indeterminate, and hence of no use for finding in the immeasurable field of possible reality the maximum suitable for us” (443). This is because the ontological concept of perfection can corrupt and is too much concerned with the end and not the form as we said in class. I wanted to get anyone’s opinion on these principles and Kant’s ideas about them such as the last one being “better than the theological concept”(443).
While your blog post well explained I feel as though your definition of what autonomy is, is lacking in some regard. Ultimately autonomy implies that we give law to ourselves, and that the form of our actions must take the form of universality (internal to the will). While what you stated in your blog is accurate, it does not provide an fully encompassed explanation of autonomy. In regards to your thoughts at the end I agree that finding anything with full universality is rare. For example, to preserve ones life is a universal law, however in some cultures, and many in the past, self sacrifice is a vital party of their society.
I though you outlined pretty well what Kant tries to explain about autonomy, but I think you missed one of the key points Kant is trying to make. These laws that humans give to themselves must not only be universalized, but must also be a law for all nature. These laws are the things that have no exceptions, they are what Kant calls certain "absolutes." Kant's idea of autonomy also captures the idea that we are most free when we give more laws to ourselves. Kant believes that actions aren't free because they are free from constraint, because then, that freedom would be arbitrary and therefore meaningless. Instead real freedom depends on some sort of principles of guidance.
I agree with just about everything that has been said so far but I would like to add a little more to what Natalie was getting at with free actions because I feel that the notion of autonomy in Kant's bigger picture is both circular, confusing, and too theoretical as Tim pointed out. As Natalie said, we are most free when we give more laws to ourselves because otherwise our action has no true meaning. Yet, we are asked to act in a way that is completely free from external influence. If our actions aren't free from constraint however are we really acting without external influence? Any thoughts?
Post a Comment