The Value Of Autonomy

This gap between the minimal and more substantive requirements of autonomy leaves open obvious questions about the extent to which autonomous actions must be rational; how differences over the rationality of various desires, choices, and evaluations can be settled; and overall whether autonomy is actually the core or defining value of liberalism. Some scholars for instance, think that instead of autonomy, toleration is the core commitment of liberalism. Chandran Kukathas is such a scholar. In his article “Cultural Toleration,” he provides a liberal approach for coping with the competing claims of the individual and their community. Kukathas gives tolerance priority over autonomy. He said that liberals are obliged to tolerate even

As Kukathas rightly says, in many cultures and subcultures, the value of autonomy is not esteemed and we should be wary of putting autonomy first. However, where the standpoint on autonomy has the danger of “liberal imperialism” or thinking liberal views of autonomy are essential for attaining the good life, Kukathas’ approach is vulnerable to the opposite danger. A danger that I think puts the values of liberalism at stake. In Kukathas’ article, we end up with a society where there are different and maybe even illiberal islands living separate and independent from one another. There are drawbacks to this image. Firstly, an island image of society is not a good one for dialogue to occur among the different groups. Also, he tends to overlook the relationship between the individual and their groups. By attributing a large amount of tolerance to groups, there is little scope for the rights of the individual. The only rights he outlined were the right to stay in the group and the right to leave it. I am not sure if these two rights are sufficient when describing a liberal society. According to Kymlicka, Kukathas’ model of society cannot be viewed as a liberal model because “it does not recognize any principle of individual freedom of conscience” (Kymlicka 1996). As a result of this, individuals, especially ones that disagree, are locked into their community. As long as they are not willing to leave the group, they are forced to comply with the groups’ norms and practices. Kukathas’ solution to this tension is that people always have the right to leave their community. There is also a problem in this. Firstly, the right to exit argument forces members of the group to make a cruel choice in my opinion. They can either accept all the group practices—including those that violate basic rights—or leave the group. I also wonder