Political Autonomy

Can the critique of the project of neutralizing the functioning of the law be consistent with a project of political autonomy?

To discuss the question stated in the essay subject, one should first think what the political autonomy is. Autonomy itself is quite a broad philosophical concept and when referred to an individual, basically means an ability to live accordingly to one’s own beliefs and follow one’s own reason, will, motives, etc. The whole notion of autonomy comes from ancient Greece and literally means self-governance. This idea has appeared especially vividly in the writings of Kant and John Stuart Mill. However, the notion of political autonomy is more specific than the general idea of it. Although approaches of various philosophers

If one takes into consideration how Kant defined both the notion of political autonomy and categorical imperative, it seems possible to achieve depoliticisation of the agents in charge of the law (assuming that they are following this imperative). The German philosopher defines the political autonomy as a situation in which if an individual’s actions observe the universal law, he/ she should be entitled to perform any action which coexists with freedom of every other individual (Kant 1996, 387). Simultaneously knowing that Kant derived the concept of his categorical imperative from an assumption that everybody shares pure practical reason one can understand that the possibility of applying it is universal. Therefore, those who are responsible for creating and executing the law in the society should be capable of becoming fully depoliticized and able to act in such a way that would protect the political autonomy. Here the first serious concern about the efficiency of neutralizing the function of the law arises. Kant’s approach assumes that what should guide individual’s actions is the pure practical reason. In contrary, Freud sees human beings as being driven mainly by their instincts, among ones most vivid ones are a desire for sex and aggression. It would be very complicated to theoretically, based on logical arguments, judge whose

A key notion in establishing political autonomy from Mill’s point of view is not – inference. It also means lack of predetermined values standing behind the established law, as having such might put the rule of non-interfering in danger. Here also arises quite a valid question on the possibility of neutralizing the functioning of the law. If those responsible for establishing and executing law decide to embrace Mill’s approach towards the proper organization of the state, they do it basing on accepting values proposed by the philosopher (in this case the calculus of the utilities). Therefore, even in a situation, when a political autonomy (as understood by Mill) is aimed, full depoliticisation of the agents in charge of the functioning of the law is not possible (as they do not stay neutral to some particular values).
After analyzing chances of succeeding with the project of neutralizing the functioning of the law, one can draw a conclusion that achieving this goal is impossible. This conclusion is backed both by critical view on the human nature presented by Freud and exhibiting logical contradiction in the non-interference principle. Having strong fundaments to assume that the critique of neutralizing the functioning of the law is well – grounded, one can discuss