Moral Autonomy vs. Heteronomy: Exploring Ethical Relativism and Absolutism
Moral Autonomy, Relativism, and Subjectivism
The word autonomy is composed of two words: auto, which means “self”, and nomos, which means “law or rule”. Autonomy consists of the free imposition of moral norms for ourselves. Moral autonomy is pointed towards human freedom. To be autonomous means to choose what we do and how we act.
For Immanuel Kant, individuals must be morally autonomous. People must have their own rules as long as they maintain a universal maxim: “Never do what you do not want done to yourself”. However, we must have determination and courage to be free. We must dare to be ourselves, and this implies not being swayed by anyone.
The authors who suggest moral autonomy prefer relativism or subjectivism about rules and moral theories. Ethical subjectivism is a theory which states that people express their desires or feelings when they make moral judgments. This idea has attracted many thinkers. David Hume said morality is a matter of feeling, not a matter of reason. The role of moral judgment is to guide our behavior, but reason can never tell us what to do on its own.
Sometimes people think subjectivism is associated with an attitude of tolerance. We must be tolerant of those people who disagree with us. Everyone is allowed to have their own opinion, and no one has the right to dictate to others that they must accept their moral ideas. If one person’s feelings are not more correct than another’s, it is wrong for anyone to impose their views on others.
To say values have a subjective character means that we attribute worth to them. But it does not mean they’re changing. Relativism does not deny that values exist, or that things are worthwhile. It simply defends that the value of things cannot be considered independent from the interests, wishes, or feelings of men. From this perspective, obligation is based on the understanding and freedom of individuals. By understanding and feeling, we discover values and their hierarchical structure; thanks to freedom, this hierarchy can impose duties and obligations.
Moral relativism says that there is not a universal moral code. The moral truth depends on historical times, and it is wrong to misjudge other people who have substantially different values, or to try to suit them to us, because theirs are equally valid.
Forms of Relativism:
- Moral Relativism: This form of relativism states that there is a huge variety of moral codes and standards, and they also vary from one historical period to another, so they are not timeless.
- Moderate Relativism: It considers it is possible to reach a universal agreement about values because we can recognize the existence of certain universal moral norms (human rights) as rules of life.
- Ethical Relativism: It is the most radical position and says it is impossible to find a method to get a universal agreement on Ethics.
The problem of relativism is that you can take as respectable some moral codes or rules that violate the fundamental rights of people, without being able to judge them for it.
Moral Heteronomy, Objectivism, and Absolutism
Aristotle said man is a social being by nature. This means we are not alone in the world, and that must be taken into account when we act. You cannot do what you want if it bothers other people. Living with others is always problematic because every person is different. We have different habits and ways of understanding life. So our way of life clashes with that of others. What can we do in such cases? To try to create a set of rules respected by everyone, and not to conflict with the variety of moral codes on earth, because all of them are equally respectable. These moral standards are called human rights.
However, moral heteronomy can be understood as those rules imposed by a higher court. The authors who support moral heteronomy say we have been given norms and we just have to respect them. This stance is defended by many religious doctrines which claim that morality was dictated by God, and men have to keep those rules. Pope John Paul II dedicated an encyclical to say that the power to decide what is wrong and what is right depends only on God and not on men.
Historically, in most societies, rules have been associated with religion, which locates their origin and validity outside of society. God would be the origin of these rules. Thus societies turn those rules into more indisputable ones by attributing them to higher standards and external sources, which could facilitate individuals respecting them, ensuring social order.
But not only religious doctrines support moral heteronomy. The positions about a moral inscribed in human nature also defend this view. Men would be naturally in a certain way and therefore would have to follow a certain moral. The difference is the moral standards have not been given in an explicit way in the Qur’an, the Old Testament, or the New Testament, but we try to find out which is the natural moral inscribed in our nature. Therefore, they tend to moral objectivism. They believe that values are objective and we just need to discover them.
Furthermore, they maintain an ethical absolutism because they admit the possibility that there is an ideal way of life. The values are worth by themselves, independently of the men who believe in them. They are absolute, timeless, and unconditioned.
The problem of moral absolutism is that some cultures, believing that their values are absolute, can destroy people because they think others are inferior, trying to impose their values and norms, such as Nazism.