Philosophy Now Forum

Morality 2020, by Jonathan Sacks
Heteronomy and Autonomy
p80: ... for Kant as for Luther authority lies not in external institutions but in the inner life of the individual. Doing good because someone else – God or society – so commanded constitutes heteronomy, a law made by someone other than me, and does not constitute moral behaviour. Morality requires autonomy meaning that I have legislated it for myself.
[But if we are talking about Society. A group of individuals making law each for themselves constitutes anarchism, self benefit. The opposite – heteronomy – applies to either a central government authority or society as a community. As Kant indicates corporate obedience to a central authority abdicates responsibility, and the law provides benefit to the authority. But in the case of society as a community, responsibility is shared, and intrinsically applies the morality to the whole, which is altruism. If shared autonomy benefits everyone and the whole then it transmutes towards being altruism.]

This seems kind of like a "note-taking" post. I'm not sure what you want us to discuss, and you're not asking us any questions.

RWStanding wrote: ↑Sat Feb 13, 2021 1:20 pm Morality 2020, by Jonathan Sacks
Heteronomy and Autonomy
p80: ... for Kant as for Luther authority lies not in external institutions but in the inner life of the individual. Doing good because someone else – God or society – so commanded constitutes heteronomy, a law made by someone other than me, and does not constitute moral behaviour. Morality requires autonomy meaning that I have legislated it for myself.
[But if we are talking about Society. A group of individuals making law each for themselves constitutes anarchism, self benefit. The opposite – heteronomy – applies to either a central government authority or society as a community. As Kant indicates corporate obedience to a central authority abdicates responsibility, and the law provides benefit to the authority. But in the case of society as a community, responsibility is shared, and intrinsically applies the morality to the whole, which is altruism. If shared autonomy benefits everyone and the whole then it transmutes towards being altruism.]

na, you're saying its ok to be a serial killer because that's his autonomy, sorry human nature isn't intrinsically good. your views are given you by the environment you have been in, which ones you absorb voluntarily or by experiences, make you up as you go along. hence morals are a agreed behavior whether for profit of the individual or group.

one might be self willed which is nothing new under the sun and all that one thinks or does is nothing new under the sun, meaning nothing is really of yourself in the first place. its already been there or is there when one comes into the world.

what one values is different for whatever reason that one might value something. which is the key to whether or not some one keeps an agreement or not. if one values the agreement, say because they value what it brings to their table then they will do well to keep their side of the bargain, but if they value something else more than what the agreement brings that they are in, then they will be at the least temped to if not act in offence to the agreement, or law, or marriage agreement, or contract, or covenant, or treaty, or rental lease, or walking into as store and paying for something before you leave with it. one could repent of the offence but does the agreement provide for such, is another question.

thing is, who or what is one in an agreement with, and is that one intrinsically good and to be believed and trusted.