Oppression,Autonomy and the Impossibility of the Inner Citadel

This paper argues for a conception of autonomy that takes social oppression seriously without sapping autonomy of its valuable focus on individual self-direction. Building on recent work in relational accounts of autonomy, the paper argues that current conceptions of autonomy from liberal, feminist and critical theorists do not adequately account for the social features of belief formation. The paper then develops an alternative conception of relational autonomy that focuses on how autonomy contains both individualistic and social epistemic features. Rather than consider autonomy to reside in an impenetrable inner citadel, a place immune from external influences, the paper argues that we must acknowledge the hermeneutic relationship between individual and social processes of belief adjudication. Taking such an argument seriously results in the need to alter our conception of autonomy and the schooling needed to foster its growth.     

Islamist Women's Agency and Relational Autonomy

Mainstream conceptions of autonomy have been surreptitiously gender‐specific and masculinist. Feminist philosophers have reclaimed autonomy as a feminist value, while retaining its core ideal as self‐government, by reconceptualizing it as “relational autonomy.” This article examines whether feminist theories of relational autonomy can adequately illuminate the agency of Islamist women who defend their nonliberal religious values and practices and assiduously attempt to enact them in their daily lives. I focus on two notable feminist theories of relational autonomy advanced by Marina Oshana and Andrea Westlund and apply them to the case of Women's Mosque Movement participants in Egypt. I argue that feminist conceptions of relational autonomy, centered around the ideal of self‐government, cannot elucidate the agency of Women's Mosque Movement participants whose normative ideal involves perfecting their moral capacity.     

Relational Autonomy and Paternalistic Interventions

Relational conceptions of autonomy attempt to take into account the social aspects of autonomous agency. Those views that incorporate not merely causally, but constitutively necessary relational conditions, incorporate a condition that has the form:

(RelAgency) A necessary condition for autonomous agency is that the agent stands in social relations S.

I argue that any account that incorporates such a condition (irrespective of how the relations, S, are spelt out) cannot play one of autonomy’s key normative roles: identifying those agents who ought to be protected from (hard) paternalistic intervention. I argue, against objections from Oshana, that there are good reasons for maintaining the notion of autonomy in this role, and thus that such relational conceptions should not be accepted. This rejection goes beyond that from John Christman, which holds only for those relational conditions which are value-laden.     

The Individualist? The autonomy of reason in Kant’s philosophy and educational views

Immanuel Kant is often viewed by educational theorists as an individualist, who put education on “an individual track,” paving the way for political liberal conceptions of education such as that of John Rawls. One can easily find evidence for such a view, in “Answer to the Question: ‘What is Enlightenment?’,” as well as in his more metaphysical, moral inquiries. However, the place of reason in Kant’s philosophy––what I call the “autonomy of reason”––spells out a negative rather than positive conception of freedom, from which stems a less individualistic or political liberal education than many presume. I cite both well known and lesser known works in the essay to demonstrate that Kant defended universal freedom only as a means towards developing the “autonomy of reason”, and I consider comparatively the education it entails with that spelled out by Rawls, despite the common conflation of the two.     

A virtue ethical approach to decisional capacity and mental health

It is a common assumption that lack of autonomy is incompatible with decisional capacity and mental health. However, there are two general conceptions of autonomy, one value-neutral and the other value-laden, which imply different notions of mental health. I argue that the value-neutral notion of autonomy is independently inadequate and that it also provides an inadequate foundation for judging whether someone is decisionally incapable or mentally disordered. I propose an alternative, value-laden account which posits ten capabilities required for basic human functioning. I then defend this account against objections and highlight its practical utility in designing optimal treatment.     

Reply to Meyers,Cahoone, Colapietro,and Pratt

This paper responds to four commentators (Diana Tietjens Meyers, Lawrence Cahoone, Vincent Colapietro, and Scott L. Pratt) on my book The Network Self: Relation, Process, and Personal Identity (2019). Aspects of the book focused on and about which I respond include reflexive communication (Meyers); identity and integrity (Cahoone); embodiment, self-deception, and autonomy (Colapietro); and social location and power (Pratt). I also clarify my strategy in the book, namely, to shift the ontological framework away from the dualistic mind/body or psychological/animalist distinction and embrace the idea that as relational processes selves are particular kinds of natural complexes (to use a term from Justus Buchler). In doing so, I aim to avoid metaphysically narrow views of human selves or persons, and to provide a framework for conceptualizing selves in both abstract and practical terms.     

Sacrifice and Relational Well-Being

ABSTRACT

The well-being account of sacrifice says that sacrifices are gross losses of well-being. This account is attractive because it explains the relationship between sacrifice and moral obligation. However, sacrifices made on behalf of loved ones may cause trouble for the account. Loving sacrifices occur in a context where the agent’s well-being and the beneficiary’s well-being are intertwined. They present a challenge to individualism about well-being. Drawing inspiration from feminist philosophers and bioethicists, I argue that a notion of ‘relational well-being’, analogous to ‘relational autonomy’, can help account for loving sacrifices without either undermining the well-being theory of sacrifice or minimizing the very real sacrifices made in caregiving situations.     

EGO-LESS AGENCY: DHARMA-RESPONSIVENESS WITHOUT KANTIAN AUTONOMY

My critical focus in this article is on Rick Repetti's compatibilist conception of free will, and his apparent commitment to a Kantian conception of autonomy, which I argue is in direct conflict with the Buddhist doctrine of no-self. As an alternative, I defend a conception of ego-less agency that I believe better coheres with core Buddhist teachings. In the course of the argument, I discuss the competing conceptions of free agency and autonomy defended by Harry Frankfurt, John Martin Fischer, Christine Korsgaard, and David Velleman.     

Emotional Autonomy and Problem Behavior Among Chinese Adolescents

The author examined the association between emotional autonomy and problem behavior among Chinese adolescents living in Hong Kong. The respondents were 512 adolescents, 16 to 18 years of age, who were interviewed for a cross-sectional study. Three dimensions of emotional autonomy including individuation, nondependency on parents, and de-idealization of parents were significantly and positively correlated with the amount of problem behavior the participants engaged in during the past 6 months. Using a simple linear multiple regression model, the author found that problem behavior was associated with only one aspect of emotional autonomy-individuation. Results indicated that the relationship between problem behavior and three aspects of emotional autonomy was similar in both individualistic and collectivistic societies.     

Autonomy, Liberalism, and Anti-Perfectionism

John Christman has recently objected to substantive conceptions of autonomy on the grounds that they introduce unwanted perfectionism into political thinking. I defend substantive conceptions of autonomy against Christman’s critique on two fronts. First, I defend substantive conceptions of autonomy against the charge that their utilisation in political theory would result in the inappropriate exclusion from democratic respect of individuals in oppressive relations. Second, I defend substantive conceptions of autonomy from the charge that they fail the ‘endorsement constraint’, i.e. that incorporating a substantive conception of autonomy into the concept of the person at the heart of a political theory would be alienating for citizens.     

Persons with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities and Information Technologies. Some Ethical Observations—A Comment on Chalgoumi et al.

This comment on Chalgoumi et al.’s article “Information Privacy for Technology Users with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities: Why Does It Matter?” focuses on the concept of autonomy in order to expand the scope of the ethical discussion. First we explore the conceptual and practical relations between privacy and autonomy. Following this, we address the issue of underfunding of information technology for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities in terms of distributive justice and provide some potential policy solutions.     

The Misguided Marriage of Responsibility and Autonomy

Much of the literature devoted to the topics of agent autonomy and agent responsibility suggests strong conceptual overlaps between the two, although few explore these overlaps explicitly. Beliefs of this sort are commonplace, but they mistakenly conflate the global state of being autonomous with the local condition of acting autonomously or exhibiting autonomy in respect to some act or decision. Because the latter, local phenomenon of autonomy seems closely tied to the condition of being responsible for an act, we tend to think of the former, global phenomenon as a condition of responsibility as well. But one can act autonomously, or manifest autonomy with respect to some occurrent state, without satisfying the conditions for autonomous agency. Autonomous agency and responsible agency are logically distinct in part due to the varient conceptions of rationality each calls for. Both agent responsibility and holding a person responsible imply a fairly ``thick' form of rationality, where rationality embodies a normative component and is a matter of satisfying criteria that are objective in the sense that they are independent of what a person happens to want or to value. But autonomous agency calls for a quite different, ``thin' conception of instrumental rationality.     

The Porosity of Autonomy: Social and Biological Constitution of the Patient in Biomedicine

The nature and role of the patient in biomedicine comprise issues central to bioethical inquiry. Given its developmental history grounded firmly in a backlash against 20th-century cases of egregious human subjects abuse, contemporary medical bioethics has come to rely on a fundamental assumption: the unit of care (and the unit of value) is the autonomous self-directing patient. In this article we examine first the structure of the feminist social critique of autonomy. Then we show that a parallel argument can be made against relational autonomy as well, demonstrating how this second concept of autonomy fails to take sufficiently into account an array of biological determinants, particularly those from microbial biology. Finally, in light of this biological critique, we question whether or to what extent any relevant and meaningful view of autonomy can be recovered in the contemporary landscape of bioethics.     

A Relational Approach to Genetic Counseling for Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer

Ethical issues arise for genetic counselors when a client fails to disclose a genetic diagnosis of hereditary disease to family: they must consider the rights of the individual client to privacy and confidentiality as well as the rights of the family to know their genetic risk. Although considerable work has addressed issues of non-disclosure from the client’s perspective, there is a lack of qualitative research into how genetic counselors address this issue in practice. In this study, a qualitative approach was taken to investigate whether genetic counselors in Australia use a relational approach to encourage the disclosure of genetic information from hereditary breast and ovarian cancer (HBOC) clients among family members; and if so, how they use it. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 16 genetic counselors from selected states across Australia. Data collection and analysis were guided by a basic iterative approach incorporating a hybrid methodology to thematic analysis. The findings provide indicative evidence of genetic counselors employing a relational approach in three escalating stages––covert, overt and authoritative––to encourage the disclosure of genetic information. The findings lend credence to the notion that genetic counselors envision a form of relational autonomy for their clients in the context of sharing genetic information, and they depart from individualistic conceptions of care/solely client-centered counseling when addressing the needs of other family members to know their genetic status.     

Autonomy or Dependence – or Both?: Perspectives from Bangladesh

The idea of personal autonomy is central to many accounts of eudaimonic well-being. Yet it is often criticized as a Western concept celebrating individualism and independence over group obligations and interdependence or dependence. This paper rejects this view and argues that coherent accounts of autonomy must always recognize the interdependence of people in groups, and that autonomy can coexist with substantial relationships of dependence. It illustrates this drawing on evidence from Bangladesh, a poor country usually absent from cross-cultural studies and one where personal relationships of hierarchy and dependence are endemic. Argument and evidence are presented showing the coexistence of personal autonomy and dependence, and the relationship between collective action and autonomy. We also address some of the specific problems encountered in researching autonomy in a social context where it is mainly expressed in relational forms. We conclude that autonomy can be directed toward both personal and social goals, and can be enacted individually, or by participation in groups. Autonomy is a universal psychological need but its expression is always contextual. ESRC Research Group on Wellbeing in Developing Countries     

青少年的个人事务自主观念研究述评

个人事务对个体自我感、自主性、情绪情感的发展及其社会化过程有着重要的意义。被儿童和青少年看作是个人事务的事主要有个人隐私、娱乐活动、对朋友的选择和对自己身体的控制等行为。目前,对个人事务自主观念的研究已经成为西方儿童青少年自主性研究的基础和重要方面。文章主要从个人事务自主观念的理论构想,发展的年龄、性别特点,影响因素及其与心理、行为发展关系等几个方面进行了述评。     

Happiness,Rationality, Autonomy and the Good Life

The paper starts with a general discussion of the concepts of happiness and the good life. I argue that there is a conceptual core of happiness which has to do with one’s life as a whole. I discuss affective and attitude or life satisfaction views of happiness and indicate problems faced by those views. I introduce my own view, the life plan view, which sees happiness as the ongoing realizing of global desires of the person. I argue that on such a view one’s life could be happy without a high level of rationality or a high level of autonomy; such rationality and autonomy are not built into the concept of happiness. So while happiness is a final value, and good for the person, it is not the only final value. Rationality and autonomy are also final values and, where they exist, are good as ends for the person, part of the good life.     

The Professional Autonomy of the Medical Doctor in Italy

This contribution deals with the issue of the professional autonomy ofthe medical doctor. Worldwide, the physician's autonomy is guaranteedand limited, first of all, by Codes of Medical Ethics. InItaly, the latest version of the national Code of MedicalEthics (Code 1998) was published in 1998 by the Federation ofprovincial Medical Associations (FnomCeO). The Code 1998acknowledges the physician's autonomy regarding the scheduling, thechoice and application of diagnostic and therapeutic means, within theprinciples of professional responsibility. This responsibility has tomake reference to the following fundamental ethical principles:(1) the protection of human life; (2) the protection of thephysical and psychological health of the human being; (3) therelief from pain; (4) the respect for the freedom and the dignityof the human person, without discrimination; (5) an up-to-datescientific qualification (Art. 5). The authors underline that autonomyis an anthropological – and consequently ethical –characteristic of the human person. Different positions on autonomy inbioethics (individualistic, evolutionistic, utilitarian andpersonalistic models) are explained. The relation between theprofessional autonomy of the physician and the autonomy of the patientand of colleagues is discussed. In fact, the medical doctor isobliged: (1) to respect the fundamental rights of the person,first of all his/her life; (2) to ensure the continuity of thecare, even if he can only relieve the patient's suffering; (3) tomaintain, except under certain circumstances, professional secrecy andconfidentiality regarding patients and their medical records. Moreover,the physician cannot deny the patient correct and appropriateinformation. He/she should not perform any diagnostic or therapeuticactivity without the informed consent of the patient and the medicaldoctor must give up medical treatment in case of documented refusal ofthe individual. Furthermore, the medical doctor has the right to raiseconscientious objections if he/she is requested to perform medicalactions that are contrary to his/her conscience or medical opinion,unless this attitude would seriously and immediately harm the patient.Regarding the relationships with colleagues, the physician is obliged tosolidarity, mutual respect, and care of sick colleagues. Finally, theauthors discuss the Italian legislation affecting the physician'sprofessional autonomy: (1) the SSN health care Acts; (2) theso-called Charter for Public Health Care Services; (3) the Acts onprivacy; (4) Good Clinical Practice.     

Counseling in a Complex World: Advancing Relational Well-Being

In a globalized world, people's attempts at living a good life interfere with one another in complex ways. In particular, tension and conflict are inevitable. This confronts counselors/therapists with the ethical question of how to take into account (global) interdependence and relational complexity. In this article, I explore what moral visions—assumptions of what a person is and should be—help counselors shift their focus from individual to relational well-being. First, I examine the moral vision of narrative therapy, as an alternative to more traditional, individualistic moral visions. Then, I construct a moral vision of relational being, based on the relational being perspective of Kenneth Gergen. This vision represents an ethical stance that may, using work by philosopher Judith Butler, be understood as an ethic of recognition and nonviolence. Finally, implications of the moral vision of relational being for counseling/therapeutic practice are explored.