AUTONOMY

-Kant claims it is the property of the rational will.

-Comes from the greek word:
 Autos- “Self”
 Heteros- “Other”
 Nomos- “Law”

-Autos (Self) + Nomos (Law) = Autonomy or “Self-legislating”

-Opposite of heteronomy (Other law)

DIFFERENCE OF AUTONOMY AND HETERONOMY

Example: Brushing children’s teeth

Children don’t like brushing their teeth but parents know that children should, to maintain oral hygiene.
So parents try to find ways to get their small children to brush their teeth before going to bed, using a
variety of incentives or threats of undesirable consequences.

Like Ryan who was told by his mother to brush his teeth or it will rot. Or
Liza who was told by her father to brush her teeth in exchange to approval of playing the computer.

In the case of Ryan and Liza, are they autonomous?

Certainly not, as their parents are the ones that legislate the principle that children should brush their
teeth before they go to bed and impose such a principle by using threats or incentives.

Now think about Ryan and Liza twenty years later when they are in their mid-twenties:

Suppose they brush their teeth every night before they go to bed, and they do so without the prodding
of their parents. Both concluded:
(1) they agree with the principle behind it (oral hygiene)-refers to the act of legislating a principle
(2) every night they impose it upon themselves to brush their teeth before going to bed- refers to the
enacting of the principle.
This refers to the willing of the adopted principle into reality.

Kant describes this as follow:

The will is thus not only subject to the law, but it is also subject to the law in such a way that it gives the
law to itself (self-legislating), and primarily just, in this way that the will can be considered the author of
the law under which it is subject (Ak 4:43)
Example:

A policeman who apprehends a suspected criminal by forcing him on the ground and putting handcuffs
on his wrists.

The will must comply with the law, which is the authority figure. The will must give the law to itself.
Therefore, the will is, at the same time, the authority figure giving the law to itself.

Thus, Kant describes autonomy as the will that is subject to a principle or law.

Heteronomy:

- the simple legislation and imposition of a law by an external authority.

Eg The parents of Ryan and Liza is the authority figures, and the law is imposed externally by rewards or
punishments.

Autonomy:

- imposition of a law on themselves out of the enactment of the will to follow the law.

Eg. The growing up and already rational Ryan and Liza, who have adopted such a law about brushing
their teeth.

AUTHORSHIP OF THE LAW

1. External- External authority, heteronomous (Eg. Parents of Ryan and Lisa)

2. Internal- Internal authority, autonomous (Eg. Ryan and Lisa themselves)

MORAL ACTIONS
- have a certain gravity, insofar as those actions directly harm or benefit the well-being of person.

Therefore, trivial actions such as brushing one’s teeth can hardly be considered “Moral.“
Example of real moral issues often involve actions like:

- stealing (Reggie’s case)

- lying, and murder

Questions that ask in relation to Reggie’s situation:

 What if Reggie did not return the suitcase , destroyed the lock, then took and sold its valuable
contents?
 Is this not an act of rational will?
 Can we not claim that Reggie’s rational will determine for itself, how it enacts its duty in this
alternative scenario?
  Is Reggie not, after all acting as an autonomous agent?

Reggie may have concluded:

“I am inside so to benefit from this lawsuit case. I am the author of this principle. I am acting
autonomously.”

We may argue that the local of the authorship of the law was certainly internal, when he tells himself, “I
am entitled to benefit from this lawsuit case, “ based on how we have described the difference between
autonomy and heteronomy.

So, is that what autonomy properly means? Certainly not.

This kind of Reasoning is mistaken from Kantian understanding.

KANTIAN UNDERSTANDING

“Kant claims that there is a difference between rational will and animal impulse.”

Animal choice (arbitrium brutum)

- caused by sensible impulses (bodily and emotional)

Human choice
- free choice: the choice that can be determined by pure reason
- freedom resides in this capacity of reason to intervene, to “mediate” within arbitrium brutum
- determined to do actions from pure will

Kant describes that human choice can be affected but it is not determined by sensible impulses.

- It implies that we are indeed basically animals, but we cannot be reduced to mere animality.
-Explains, “The human person is not only an animal, but is also rational,” and admits two possible causes
of our actions:
 sensible impulses
 the faculty of impulses

Let us return once again to Reggie and an alternative scenario when he tells himself:

“I am entitled to benefit from his lost suitcase.”

Is it always autonomous agency when a person enacts any apparently self-legislated principle?

Autonomy is a property of the will only during instances when the action is determined by pure reason.

Heteronomy is when an action is determined by sensible impulses, despite the source of those impulses
being internal. Because the sensible impulse is “external” to one’s self-legislating faculty of reason.
 Kant confirms this point when he states that “the action caused by sensible impulses results always
only in the head of the will because it is what he calls, a foreign impulse”.

Therefore, Reggie is not acting autonomously.

Why would we consider his will as being heteronomous?

Because a sensible impulse would be the cause of such action, whether it is greed or the excitement of
obtaining easy money without working for it, or the shame that arises from being unable to provide for
his family. In any of those causes, a sensible impulse is akin to a “foreign impulse” that has the same
immediacy of an external authority figure that imposes its will on Reggie.

Heteronomy- any foreign impulse, whether it is external (as in other persons or institutions that impose
their will on the agent) or sensible (as in bodily instincts or base emotions) is what compels a person to
act.

Autonomy- is the property of the will in those instances when pure reason is the cause of the action.

What consists in an action that is done by autonomous will is pure reason?

What does it mean to act according to pure reason?