Autonomy Vs. Utilitarianism

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines autonomy as an individual’s capacity for self-determination or self-governance (Iep.utm.edu, 2015). Autonomy could either be moral, personal or political. Self-respect, simply put, is a feeling of pride or confidence in ones’ self; a sense of dignity and honour. Keeping the definitions above in mind, I will attempt to show that respecting an individual’s right to self-respect and autonomy is both a moral right and morally significant.

We run into a philosophical problem when we ask the following question: Is the attitude of individuals morally significant when dealing with autonomy and self-respect? The same philosophical problem likewise applies to the question of whether or not Autonomy and

Steck states the following in support of Camp A: “The underlying idea behind Kantian ethics is that each human being has inherent worth. Simply because you are a human, you have worth in and of yourself. Kant’s evidence for this is simple (or, rather I can explain it in a simple way), without human beings, there would be nothing “valued” — so, since the value must come from someplace, it must be from human beings.” She further states, “Kant argues that human reason facilitates human (or individual) autonomy. This implies that we can decide what we want to accomplish in the world and make decisions about how to act and the overall course of our lives. Thus, we can also reason to right behavior” (philosophyfactory, 2011). What Camp A is saying in terms of Autonomy and self-respect is this: According to Kant, if we are indeed humans, we must treat others with respect. This act of treating others respectfully helps increase their confidence in self (or self-respect). We can conclude therefore that, we must respect others’ right to autonomy, be it individual, political or moral. For Camp A, autonomy and self-respect are a moral right; also, peoples’ attitudes are morally significant. To clarify, for example, whether I like it or not, I have to respect my best friend’s right to live his life how he wishes, and respect him regardless; it is my best friend’s moral right. Moreover, my respecting my friend is morally

Bentham, one of the fathers’ of Utilitarianism represents Camp B effortlessly: “Specifically, then, what is morally obligatory is that which produces the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, happiness being determined by reference to the presence of pleasure and the absence of pain” (Iep.utm.edu, 2015). What Utilitarians are saying is this: We should only respect the right to self-respect and autonomy if in so doing, it brings us maximum happiness and pleasure. If it doesn’t, we’re free to choose not to. In this case, autonomy and self-respect are not necessarily a moral right, nor is it necessarily morally significant. For example, if it is in my benefit to respect my friend’s right to autonomy and self-respect, I should respect his rights. If it doesn’t benefit me (and bring me happiness), I need not respect his or her