Autonomy Revisited
In a N&C (Circumstances) a few days ago I asked a lot of questions about the relation (if any) between ethical commitments and autonomy. About whether it’s possible to have ethical commitments (as opposed to rules) at all without autonomy. I don’t know the answer. But I am skeptical about the possibility, and I think that problem (if it is one) gets overlooked too easily, when people think about religion as a source of ethical commitments and ideas.
I happened on some relevant remarks this morning, so thought I would add them to the mix. They’re by Susan Moller Okin in Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? pp. 129-130.
Even the most prominent ‘political liberal’ of all, John Rawls, who rejects the imposition on religious sects that ‘oppose the modern world’ of the requirement that their children be educated so as to value autonomy and individuality , also argues that the liberal state should require that all children be eudcated so as to be self-supporting and be informed of their rights as citizens, including freedom of conscience…Nussbaum, who also endorses political liberalism, says that, while it respects nonautonomous lives, it ‘insists that every citizen have a wide range of liberties and opportunities; so it agrees…that a nonautonomous life should not be thrust upon someone by the luck of birth…Many parents belonging to religions or cultures that do not respect autonomy would (and do) very strongly resist their children’s being exposed to any religious or cultural views but their own. But, like Nussbaum (and to a lesser degree Rawls) I do not think that liberal states should allow this to happen. I believe that a certain amount of nonautonomy should be available as an option to a mature adult with extensive knowledge of other options, but not thrust on a person by his or her parents or group, through indoctrination – including sexist socialization – and lack of exposure to alternatives.
There. Exactly what I was thinking. ‘Lack of exposure to alternatives.’ The argument that religion should be treated with special consideration because ethical commitments are an especially valued and valuable part of individual identity seems dubious to me not only because religion is not the only source of such commitments, but also because for many people ethical commitments can be a kind of closed loop. They can be a closed loop and still be a valued part of identity…but does that matter? Or at least does it matter more than other considerations that come to mind? Like considerations about the merit of the ethical commitments in question (maybe the children of Mafiosi, of white supremacists, of warlords, grow up with strong ethical commitments to extortion and murder and genocide), and about whether the people who hold them have ever actually thought about them, and whether this question relates to the previous one. In other words, does it make any difference whether an ethical commitment is something you’re just born to, or whether it’s something you’ve consciously made? Surely it does. If we never think about ethical commitments, how do we separate the decent ones from the disastrous ones? Ethical commitments are not just adornments for our identities, they’re motivations to treat people well or badly; so they’re not just personal private concerns, they’re also public ones.
‘If we never think about ethical commitments, how do we separate the decent ones from the disastrous ones?’
The problem is that different people judge whether an ethical commitment is disastrous or not by very different criteria. H.E.Baber had a nice piece on her Blog last week, about neo-patrimonialism, which illustrated nicely how Murcans are split in their ‘ethical commitment’ to government.
People who buy into religion have to consider ethical commitments in the context of reincarnation or ‘the rapture’ or ‘what the invisible Giant Pumpkin whispered to me’. Your question only makes sense in respect of our commitment to rational naturalism.
The value of our ethical commitments is their utility in ensuring the survival and prosperity of the things we love in this world. We are in a struggle for minds, and if we are to win we need to be as committed as the theists, and as proselytising, and much smarter… but the last of these is a tautology, isn’t it?
I wonder if there is not some over-estimation of the effects of a normal religious upbringing. Look at my own country, Ireland. My parents (born 1930) were part of a very religious generation with typically only primary education, controlled by various religious orders. My generation (born 1960) had more of the same type of education (typically second-level). Yet we are far more secular. The trend continues with generations born after 1970, who are in their outlook typical of people on continental Europe.
I mentioned education because of the irony that the religious orders educated children and adolescents with the intention of giving them strong faith yet with better education came a falling away from organised religion of any kind.
(I refer to a ‘normal religious upbringing’ to exclude the brainwashing techniques of the more extreme cults).
I read that Baber piece too: it was interesting.
“My generation (born 1960) had more of the same type of education (typically second-level). Yet we are far more secular.”
Sure – but why? Because of a lot of other influences, right? The ones I mentioned (and no doubt others, too) – various media, libraries, and the like. No? Tell me if I’m wrong – but I’m assuming that in Ireland in the ’70s and after you weren’t sealed away from all outside influences. I’m thinking mostly of people who really are sealed away from all outside influences. It seems to me in that sort of situation there is little ‘exposure to alternatives’ – in fact none, apart from fantasy, and even fantasy is stunted if there’s nothing to feed it. I take places like Ireland to be well within that middle area that is so large and complicated.
So, in other words, I may well be over-estimating the effects of a normal religious upbringing – but maybe not. I know plenty of people who had one and grew right out of it. I’m thinking of stricter, harsher, more deprived situations, as the ones that raise questions about commitments.
Your point is well made Ophelia.
Let me add some information for you:
1) In the case of Ireland up to 1960’s the whole society was extremely religious. Yet it changed.
2) In the case of e.g. Muslims in Britain, they are living already in a secular society and so will be influenced by this environment.
3) I think what we are seeing in the UK is simply a generational conflict between religiously strict parents and more secular children. This is just a variation on the usual phenomenon of immigration, that the first generation keep to the old ways while their successors integrate more and more.
4) So at the moment there is a struggle for the second generation, between those who want to keep the old ways and those who want to become like everyone else.
To answer your point about creeds that try to shut out outside influences, I agree these are much more problematic.
But remember that the 9/11 bombers and their ilk were and are not cut off from these influences. Their Islamicism came from a reaction to those influences.
So being shielded from the ways of Western society is not necessary for the phenomenon you are worried about