Personal
autonomy
I think of personal autonomy as my opportunity
to prefer my opinion/preference to another person’s or group’s or government’s
opinion. I am a man of faith in and trust in the objective truth much of which
unknown and some of which is known but do not want anyone to adopt my faith. Yet
I am cooperative
with the opposing opinion—live and let live as long as there is no harm. For
example, if I were sent to my death for an offense I did not commit, it is my
opportunity to die with self-assurance.[1]
Conversely, if I committed the offense, I may die knowing that I did what I chose
to do (apparently in self-destructive personal autonomy).
I developed my view of
personal autonomy over seven decades of living, without much study until now. I
am writing this essay to express what I think personal autonomy means to the
civic ethics of human physics then look for pertinent opinion in the literature.
One way or another personal autonomy has been a subject of debate ever since
writing began. Personal autnomy applies to every choice made, but I will discuss it regarding social relationships leading to monogamy and family and then expand to issues in the literature.
Personal autonomy is
critical in forming relationships with people. Most people are aware of the
tension between attraction to someone and appreciating their privacy. Everybody
knows that the most attractive person in the room can be embarrassed by
attention to appearance instead of the person, yet the attractive person does
not want to be ignored. Familiarity is approached in equality; each party
practices autonomy. Someone cannot be “in love” with someone who does not want
a relationship. When intimacy is being considered, personal autonomy is being
compromised into cooperative autonomy. As my friend, Josh Riley said, monogamy
requires some surrender, without neglecting personal autonomy. A couple wherein
one partner submits to the other loses the strength of collaboration and
cooperation.
Many persons are focused on having sex
instead of making love. Finding love requires, in a slow process, exercising personal autonomy to form the bond
of cooperative autonomy. There’s progression from an encounter; a glance; a word; acquaintance;
consideration; familiarity; dependability; friendship; commitment; trust; intimacy
with reservations that preserve both parties' personal autonomy; mutual
dedication; commitment to monogamy: intimacy that preserves the autonomy of
possible progeny; confirmation of monogamy; and readiness to share the love
with progeny. Some people don't have the character to wait for love. Some people
just want to have sex.
Some people cherish their personal
autonomy and some don't. Some people, greedy for immediate sexual satisfaction
on psychological attraction or biological demand, become promiscuous, thereby
yielding any regard for personal autonomy. In the extreme, they risk personal
safety, not even making certain the other party does not have sexually
transmitted disease. Such people volunteer to be second-class citizens, subject
to high risk behavior. Such people substantially forego personal dignity.
While humans are born uninformed, most children have encourageable
tendencies toward 1) strong attraction to each other and 2) responsibility for
mutual agreements. However, these tendencies must be nourished toward best
mutual practices. Neglected in modern childhood education is the understanding
that persons who bond with each other, each surrender a measure of personal
autonomy—create obligations to each other and if pregnancy occurs, equal and
separate obligations to the conceived human being who has potential personhood.
A civically ethical man who has personal autonomy recognizes that a
civically ethical woman has, in addition to personal autonomy, cooperative
autonomy toward the ova she carries: she is attentive to and protective of some
400 viable ova during her fertile decades. She maintains personal well-being
with this appreciation in mind. For this reason, the ethical man[2]
protects the woman’s personal autonomy, giving a second assurance that the ova
are protected respecting the chance for conception, gestation, and delivery and
to cultivate personal autonomy. This male ethical behavior defines masculinity.
If the couple decide to procreate, they obtain a civil license to
assure civic attention to the child in case the couple cannot fulfill their
intentions to care for the child. The biological and psychological unit of
mother, father, and child may develop cooperative monogamy over their lifetime
and extend it into posterity. If an ethical woman is impregnated in violence or
hatred or other risk to the fetus, she has the physical ability to terminate
the pregnancy and the autonomy to make that decision. Anyone who would prevent
her decision has violated the ethics of human physics.
The first step in the emergence of a human being is conception by
fertilization of her viable ovum, which initially remains a single cell.
Seventeen chromosomes from each the father and the mother are randomly arranged
to form a unique DNA that is nevertheless part of a unit of three humans: the
couple and their progeny. The unit has heritage in two family lines. Because of
the unique DNA, this single cell is destined to have a unique, inalienable
personal autonomy that is nevertheless subject to fate including the choices
made along the way.
The mother freely attaches with the child and the father assists in
the attachment. An ethical couple appreciates the right to personal autonomy of
their child and nourishes it from feral infant with minimal autonomy to young
adult. The child is coached in protection and cultivation of his/her personal
autonomy, giving the young adult the character to withstand fate into its full
life—some eighty years in this century. The grandparents and other family participate
in this support. That is, the child receives layers of psychological maturity
which the parents are too young to provide.[3]
Breach of the unit of mother, father, and child and their heritage is unethical
and does not appreciate the equality and dignity of the child.
When
breach of a couple’s obligation becomes apparent, society takes charge of the child but discovery of personal autonomy is probably more a
duty to self. In all cases, society refuses to endorse abandonment, neglect,
abuse, or murder of progeny. These ideas are not discussed this way in the literature, yet they
may be observed in the lives of the people. However, civic characterizations of
people progress from criminal, enslaved,
abused, helpless, dependent, viable, adolescent, responsible, contributing,
admirable, psychologically mature, and noble or better.
Whether they realize it
or not, each human has the opportunity for personal autonomy until they lose the
chance, for example, through early death. Personal autonomy should be taught by
any agency that wants to inculcate ethics, which religion vainly claims to do. Breach of a child’s equality and dignity
happens all the time, but every breach brings woe to everyone involved, and a
civically ethical people does not endorse it. Same-sex partners are not a
couple to a child --cannot be the child's mother and father. Quoting Michael
Polanyi,[4]
"The freedom of the subjective
person to do as he pleases is overruled by the freedom of the responsible
person to act as he must." Therefore, same-sex monogamy, within civic
ethics of human physics, does not involve children.
The chief point
is that children and children to be born are persons who are inalienably
entitled to equality and dignity for both their entry into life and their
experiences leading to personal autonomy and their path to perhaps
psychological maturity: unencumbered discovery of self. In early adulthood,
personal autonomy becomes a personal responsibility that is in constant tension
with society.
However, my opinion
does not rule, and personal autonomy means different things to different
groups.
Legal interpretation from a review article; see reference
to Scott’s article, below
The
Legal Information Institute[5]
has personal autonomy as a sub-caption under “right to privacy.” Court cases
address,
the freedom of
individuals to choose whether or not to perform certain acts or subject
themselves to certain experiences. This personal autonomy has grown into a
'liberty' protected by the Due
Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. However, this liberty is narrowly
defined and generally only protects privacy of family, marriage, motherhood,
procreation, and child rearing.
Privacy seems to be the chief consideration in
procreation, with contraception and abortion protected until the fetus is
viable. Personal autonomy seems important in intimacy issues like same-sex
sodomy and pornography.
Personal
autonomy is mentioned in special circumstances. It is reportedly a major
problem among people who may need assistance for living; sometimes assistants are
overbearing. Assignment of guardians is a significant social issue in Israel.[6]
Thus,
the legal considerations seem to focus on adults and ignore consideration of
the child to be conceived. It’s almost like neither the child to be born nor
the infant possess equality and dignity--is subject to whatever its mother and
father want. This is a major injustice, as equality and dignity must begin with
life. After birth, the person gradually must take charge of personal autonomy—becomes
inalienably responsible for the consequences of being.
Philosophic interpretation
Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy treats personal autonomy[7] as
self governance. The chief consideration is agency to take action on personal
volition. To not act on this power is self-denial of personal autonomy. This
holds true even when the agent decides to either break a law or to obey the
law. It is possible for a person to overlook or neglect his/her personal
autonomy. Frequent failure undermines personal autonomy. Brainwashing,
addiction, desire, compulsion, and such can ruin personal autonomy.
Cultivation of personal
autonomy is a psychological practice in character-building that is a function
of personal goals. Personal goals are established during progress from feral
infant to civilized young adult and goals initiate a social journey that is
affected by fate. Personal autonomy develops as the person views as good or bad
experiences and observations in the complex balance of desires for achievement
while appreciating other people. An early possibility is the choice not to harm
other persons. A person who does not cultivate personal autonomy can lose their
personhood.
On the path from feral
infant to young adult, who is cultivating personal autonomy, the appreciation
of other people is affected by the observable conduct of the other people: some
are good, some are bad, and some are evil. Fortunate is the person who early
appreciates his/her own ability to judge observable conduct. With acute
attention to this experience, a person can gain high confidence and have a
better chance of realizing the negotiation of a complete life despite fate.
Fortunate is the person who experiences cultivation of personal autonomy into
the upper decades of life expectancy, for example, into the sixties, seventies
or eighties, when psychological maturity may be attained. Psychological
maturity has been described as self-discovery in freedom from all internal and
external constraints.[8]
Kant discussed moral
autonomy as independence from the community’s opinions,[9]
whereas personal autonomy has to do with conduct, not necessarily morals. This
gets into determination of morality, which might be a different subject
altogether, but I think civic morality should be mediated by the ethics of physics[10].
Psychological interpretation
One psychological
reference considers personal autonomy as “vital to personal growth.” [11]
Parents who force a child to act against the child’s nature may be causing
psychological harm, so it is important to appreciate a child’s personhood. (Separating
a child from its mother is an act against the child’s nature.) As the child
grows into adolescence, he/she will encounter people who act with differing
personal autonomy, and it is critical for each child to appreciate differences
without pressure to either mimic other persons or prevent their autonomy—learn to
enjoy different personalities. However, there must be cooperation and when one
party does not appreciate personal autonomy, conflict is probable.
It is important to
recognize that personal autonomy does not conflict with civic governance:
people can disagree with civil order—republicanism--yet observe and cultivate
it. Civic governance addresses cooperation with other people respecting shared
facilities and activities necessary for pursuing interests that are decided on
personal autonomy. A simple example is vehicular traffic, wherein people need
to observe regulations, but have no interest in the other party’s task.
As a conception of American liberty
Carl
Scott sees personal autonomy as one of five conflicting yet interlocking
liberties in America: natural rights, community self-governance, economic
individualism, social justice, and moral individualism, or personal autonomy. “The core idea . . . is the notion
that the individual should be allowed to do whatever he wishes, so long as he
does not harm others or violate their rights.” Similar statements were made by
Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and in the French Revolution. However, “all
modern democratic nations have witnessed, and will continue to see, some
majorities becoming convinced that society will be harmed by permitting certain
lifestyles — such as those of the overweight or
uncleanly, the uneducated, the drug-addicted or otherwise vice-besotted, the
sexually deviant or promiscuous, or those publicly adhering to a false religion
or atheism.” When someone decides to depend on neighbors for
needs they can fulfill, the neighbors may chose to not respond.
Personal autonomy “pushes against societal regulation of all
these aspects of life and flatly rejects it with respect to consensual sex and
religious opinion.” Scott himself seems willing to exclude atheists. For
political views, Scott references in lieu of studies opinions expressed by three
Supreme Court justices: William Brennan, Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia. Brennan
referred to “individual autonomy,” and said,
The Constitution . . .[t]he original document, before
addition of any of the amendments, does not speak primarily of the rights of
man, but of the abilities and disabilities of government. [T]his text is about
is the relationship of the individual and the state. The text marks the metes
and bounds of official authority and individual autonomy. When one studies the
boundary that the text marks out, one gets a sense of the vision of the
individual embodied in the Constitution.
[T]he possibilities for collision between government
activity and individual rights will increase as the power and authority of
government itself expands, and this growth, in turn, heightens the need for
constant vigilance at the collision points.
I think
Brennan overflows the articles and amendments and should look to the preamble for
a definition of personal autonomy. He also seems to view the amendments “against
the states,” which I also oppose, to favor governance of by and for a people. Kennedy,
also building opinion on opinion, expressed in court a similar vision[12]:
Our law
affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage,
procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education.
Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 .
Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free
from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting
a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird,
supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis
in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family
life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944).
These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may
make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are
central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to
define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the
mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the
attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State. [505 U.S. 833, 852]
I
highlighted one sentence by Kennedy that is at the core of Supreme Court
failure. People cannot define the emergences from physics: people who defy
physics do so unethically. Justice Scalia[13]
disagrees with Brennan and Kennedy, in tacit concern over chaos:
The Texas statute
undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of
sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra,
at 196--the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication,
bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held
that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the
opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, "furthers no
legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the
personal and private life of the individual," ante, at 18
(emphasis addded). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens'
declaration in his Bowers dissent, that "the fact that the
governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as
immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the
practice," ante, at 17. This effectively decrees the end
of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of
majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest,
none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review.
Thank goodness Brennan and Kennedy do not hold
controlling opinion. However, I think Stevens is correct to look beyond
tradition for the basis for decisions, and again, what the Supreme Court is
missing is the ethics of physics: that is the basis for negotiating civic
morality.
The above three
arguments reflect a supreme court that has lost or never had perspective of
legitimate higher power. They state elsewhere (for example, Greece v Windsor)
that legislative prayer is ceremonial and indeed federal theism is ceremonial.
However, the higher power in this country rests with a people, and their
mediator is the ethics of physics. Thus, the human dignity that Brennan extols
must be based on personal autonomy in conformity to the ethics of physics, and
not mere human existence. Contrary to Brennan’s opinion, there are individuals
who are so evil they deserve to die and it is a people’s responsibility to make
those determinations. Also, a person who is not worthy to be a father or mother
should not bear children, and only a people can defend children from abuse by
unworthy parents.
Copyright©2014 by Phillip R. Beaver. All
rights reserved. Permission is hereby granted for the publication of all or
portions of this paper as long as this complete copyright notice is included.
[1] Socrates,
tried under false accusations and found guilty because of politics, could have
gone into exile but chose to die. He was exercising personal autonomy within
civic limits. I think he died to defend the rule of law, which would make his
act noble. Regardless, by choosing death instead of exile after a bad court
decision, he exercised personal autonomy.
[2]
William Faulkner’s Absalom, Absalom!, 1936, gave me the message that a woman
who lies to a man risks unleashing woe she could not imagine (against the
personal autonomy of each ova she carries), and a man who has not been coached
to protect the personal autonomy of a woman (by not impregnating her even if
his hormones rage against his
personal autonomy) risks unleashing woe he cannot imagine. That's the ethics of
human physics gleaned from my understanding of a very difficult story to follow
and brook.
[3]
The human body does not complete the parts of the brain needed for building
wisdom until age 23-25, and therefore, procreation should not be considered
until age 30 or so, maybe 35. So, the window for optimal procreation lasts
about one to two decades.
[4] Michael
Polanyi, Personal Knowledge, 1958,
page 309.
[5]
Online at www.law.cornell.edu/wex/personal_autonomy
.
[7]
Online at plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy/
.
[8]
Professor Orlando Patterson.
[9]
Online at www.iep.utm.edu/autonomy/
.
[10] A
person does not spit into the wind. A child’s mother and father, it’s couple,
was determined at conception, forming a biological and psychological unit that
cannot be divided.
[11]
Online at www.creative-personal-growth.com/personal-autonomy.html
[12] Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey online at caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833
.
[13]
Lawrence v Texas online at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
