autonomy and benevolent lies

8/9/2019 Autonomy and Benevolent Lies

1/17

s Valuelnquiry 18:25 1-26 7(198 4).9 1984 M artinus Ni/hoffPublishers, Dordrecht. Printed in the Netherlands.

rticles

A U T O N O M Y A N D B E N E V O L E N T L IE S

THOMAS E. H ILL, Jr.University of California at Los An geles

O ften i t i s easy to see wha t i s wro ng wi th ly ing ) M any l ie s a re v ic ious : they a rem ean t to hur t , and o f t en do . Oth e r li e s a re se lf -se rv ing a t the expense o f o the r s :they ga in someth ing fo r the l i a r bu t a re de t r im en ta l to those w ho a re dece ived .Even we l l - in t en t ioned l i e s a re somet imes d i scovered , wi th conse quen t damag e tova lued re l a t ionsh ips an d to t rus t and c red ib i l ity in genera l . M any l ie s a re v io la t ionsof p ro fess iona l o b l iga t ions ; o the r s a re b reaches o f p rom ise to pa r t i cu la r ind iv idua ls .Bu t the re a re a l so ins tances in which these ex p lana t ions do n o t seem to app ly andye t the l ie i s s till n o t be yo nd mo ra l ques t ion . We fee l tha t the re is a t l eas t som eth ingto be sa id aga ins t ly ing even then , bu t i t is no t ob v ious w ha t th i s is . No p rom ises o rp r o f e s s i o n a l c o m m i t m e n t s a r e a t s t a k e ; n o h a r m f u l c o n s e q u e n c e s a r e i n t e n d e d o rexpected; and yet the l ie s t i l l seems a t leas tprima facie ob jec t iona b le . We na tu ra l -l y w o n d e r, w h y ? To r e s t t h e m a t t e r w i t h t h e i n tu i ti v e re m a r k th a t t r u t h -t e ll in gis a lways aprima facie obl igat ion i s hardly sa t i s fy ing. To say tha t k i l l ing , maiming,and caus ing pa in a reprima facie w r o n g m a y a r o u s e n o f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n s ; b u t w h y,one wo nders , shou ld t ru th - te l l ing be v iewed th i s w ay, e spec ia lly wh en a l ie seemsl ik e l y t o r e s u l t in m o r e g o o d t h a n h a r m ?

At leas t a par t ia l answer, I sugges t , i s tha t l ies of ten ref lec t inadequate respectf o r t h e a u t o n o m y o f t h e p e r so n w h o is d e ce iv e d. U n f o r t u n a t e l y, th o u g h a u t o n o m yhas b een an inc reas ing ly popu la r co ncep t in r ecen t yea r s , t he re i s no u n i fo rm under-s t a n d i n g a b o u t w h a t a u t o n o m y i s . I h o p e t h a t b y t r a c i n g d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n s o fa u t o n o m y f r o m t h e i r K a n t i a n p r o t o t y p e w e c a n se e m o r e c l e a rl y, a n d s p ec i fi c al ly,the va r ious ways in which l i e s in t e r fe re wi th au tonomy. Bu t the in te res t in au tono-m y e x t e n d s b e y o n d o u r i m m e d i a t e q u e s t io n a b o u t l y in g : b e n e v o l e n t l ie s m e r e l yi l lus t r a te one o f ma ny w ays in which na r row u t i l i t a ri an th ink ing can fos te r un-wa r ran ted in te r fe rence in o the r s ' l ives .

M y rem arks wi ll be d iv ided as fo l lows :First , I character ize a specia l c lass ofbene vo len t l ie s which pose the ma in is sue sha rp ly ;second, I dist inguish severalc o n c e p t i o n s o f a u t o n o m y w i t h a s s o c i a t e d m o r a l p r i n c i p l e s ;third, I t ry to exp la inhow, in d i ff e ren t ways , these p r inc ip les oppose benevo len t l i e s ; andfinally, Ic o m m e n t b r i e f l y o n h o w a b e l ie v e r i n a u t o n o m y m i g h t r e s p o n d t o t h e h e d o n i s tcon ten t ion tha t i t i s ir r a t iona l no t to lie i f a l ie wi l l r e su l t i n the m os t f avorab lep leasure /pa in r a t io .

251


2/17

252

My aim is not to f ind a precise rule or decis ion procedure for deciding hardcases . In fact I suspect tha t the search for one wo uld be misguided. M any different

considerat ions oppose most l ies , and in di ff icul t s i tuat ions there are arguments forand aga ins t. M y ob jec t i s no t to rank these compet ing fac to rs in impo r tance bu tra ther to a r t icu la te one type of cons idera tion tha t is too o f ten over-shadowed.Malice , har m , and breache s of t rus t are so obvious and so of t en o bject ions to l iestha t sub t le r so r t s o f ob jec t ion , though usua l ly p resen t a t the same t ime , may beover looked. The point of isola t ing very specia l examples of benevolent l ies is tofocus a t t en t ion on such ob jec t ions ; i t i s no t to deny the impo r tance o f o ther a rgu-ments or to ar t icula te considerat ions that apply only in rare c i rcumstances .

A form er t eacher re la ted to me the fo l lowing t rue s to ry (which I have mod i f iedsl ight ly) . He had a s tudent who showed in tu tor ia l conversat ions s igns of deep,suic idal depress ion. Th e s tud ent w as la ter fou nd dead , and th e c i rcumstances weresuch that o thers could eas i ly have seen his death as accidental . The professorhe lped to ga ther up the boy ' s be longings to re tu rn to h i s mother, and no su ic idenote w as found . Bu t the m othe r, a devout Ro ma n C atho l ic , was deep ly wo rr ied

abou t her son ' s sou l, and she asked the p rofessor po in t b lan k w hether he had anyreason to suspect su ic ide . The professor, an a the i st , wa nted to c om for t he r and so ,by a qui te del iberate l ie , assured her that , as far as he knew, the boy had been ingo od spiri ts .

Another t rue s to ry concerns a doc tor who d i scovered tha t h i s mother, a ve rye lder ly bu t happ y wo ma n, had ex t rem ely advanced a theriosc le ros i s. He r doc torhad apparen t ly chosen to t rea t the p rob lem as bes t he cou ld wi thout in formingthe wo ma n h ow near dea th she was . The son had no ob jec t ion to the medica lt rea tment o r her doc tor ' s dec i s ion to wi thhold in format ion . Though he thoughth i s m othe r psycholog ica l ly and phys ica lly capab le o f handling the t ru th , he be-l ieved tha t he r l ast days w ould be happie r i f she d id no t know . The prob lem arosewh en she asked her son d i rec t ly, D o yo u th ink the doc to r is t e ll ing me every-th ing? The son l i ed ; bu t s ince the ques t ion concern ed h is op in ion and he hadlearned of her condi t ion in ways she d id no t suspec t and wi thout anyone e l seknowing tha t he knew , he fe l t conf iden t tha t she would never d iscover h is li e.He l ied to make her m ore co mfo r tab le , and she was in fac t hap py un t i l he r dea th .

Cons ider, l a s tly, a d i l emma which cou ld occur even i f i t has no t . Mary has madea pa infu l b reak f r om her ex- lover, John , and though pu l led toward s h im, is on themen d . H er roo mm ate is p leased fo r her, a s she know s tha t Jo hn and Mary were ,and wi ll r em ain , pa infu l ly incom pat ib le . She is fea rfu l , though , tha t Jo hn and Marywil l get toge ther again , causing bo th unnece ssary misery b efor e the inevi table f inalseparat ion. Overhear ing John ta lking with a f r iend, she learns that John is readyto s tar t ove r i f only he receives an encouraging s ign; and she expe cts tha t M ary,ever the op t imis t , would g ive the s ign. La te r Mary asks the room m ate , D o yo u


3/17

2 5 3

t h i n k h e w o u l d w a n t t o t r y a g ai n i f I a s k e d h i m ? A s a n a c t o f k i n d n e s s, t h e ro o m -m a t e r e pl ie s , N o , I a m s u r e h e k n o w s i t w o u l d n e v e r w o r k .

T h e s e e x a m p l e s i l lu s t r at e t h e s p e c ia l so r t o f b e n e v o l e n t l ie s I w a n t t o c o n s i d e r.T h e l ie s a r e b e n e v o l e n t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e in t e n d e d t o b e n e f i t t h e p e r s o n d e c e i v e d ,f o r n o u l t e ri o r m o t i v e s , a n d t h e y a c t u a l l y s u c c e e d i n g iv i ng c o m f o r t w i t h o u t c a u s in gp a i n . D e s p i t e t h e b e n e v o l e n t m o t i v e s , t h e r e i s n o d e n y i n g t h a t d e l i b e r a t e l ie s w e r et o l d . W e a r e n o t d e a li n g w i t h e x a m p l e s o f m e r e s i l en c e , e v a s i o n , a m b i g u o u s r e -s p o n s e , a n d t h e l i k e . T h e l ie s, m o r e o v e r , a r e n o t d e s ig n e d t o p r o t e c t i n c o m p e t e n t sf r o m t r u t h s b e y o n d t h e i r c a p a c i ti e s t o h a n d l e s a n e l y a n d r e s p o n s i b l y. I n o u r s a m p l ec a se s a l ie w il l p r o t e c t s o m e o n e f r o m a v o i d a b l e p a i n , b u t i t i s n o t n e e d e d t o p r e v e n ts e r io u s p h y s i c a l o r p s y c h o l o g i c a l d a m a g e , v io l e n t o u t b u r s t s , g r os s m i s p e r c e p t i o n o f

r e a l i t y, a n d s o o n .O u r e x a m p l e s a l s o fa l l o u t s i d e a ra n g e o f s p e c ia l p r o b l e m s i t u a ti o n s . S o m e l ie s ,f o r e x a m p l e , a r e t o l d i n a c o n t e x t w h e r e t h e l ia r h a s ra t h e r l i tt le c h a n c e o f b e i n gb e l i e v e d ; b u t i n o u r c a se s t h e r e i s s u f f ic i e n t c r e d i b i li t y t o m a k e t h e d e c e p t i o n e f -f e c t iv e . O t h e r l ie s c o n c e r n m a t t e r s w h i c h a r e , i n t u i ti v e l y, n o n e o f t h e b u s i n e s so f t h e q u e s t i o n e r : f o r e x a m p l e , a l ie t o l d t o a c u r i o u s s t u d e n t w h o a s k e d h is t e a c h e ra b o u t h i s p r i v a t e s e x li fe . B u t t h e q u e s t io n s i n o u r e x a m p l e s a r e c l e a r ly n o t o u t o fb o u n d s i n t hi s w a y. W h a t is a s k e d f o r is i n f o r m a t i o n o r o p i n i o n a b o u t w h a t d e e p l yc o n c e r n s t h e q u e s t i o n e r ' s o w n l if e . A l s o th e l ie s i n o u r s t o r i e s c a n n o t b e d e e m e dt ri v ia l . U n l i k e l i t tl e w h i t e l i e s, t h e y a r e a b o u t m a t t e r s o f t h e u t m o s t i m p o r t a n c et o t h e d e c e i v e d : h e a v e n o r h e l l, l if e o r d e a t h , r e u n i o n o r s e p a r a t i o n f r o m a l o v e do n e . F u r t h e r , o u r e x a m p l e s c o n c e r n l ie s b e t w e e n i n d i v i d u a ls , n o t l i es f r o m p u b l i co f f i c ia l s o r t o i n s t i t u t i o n s , a n d s o c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s o f p u b l i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y a r e l e f ta s id e . F i n a l l y, l e t u s i m a g i n e t h a t t h e d e c e i v e d h a s n o t f o r f e i t e d a r i g h t to k n o w , f o re x a m p l e , b y h i s o w n r e p e a t e d l y i n g o r b y h a v i n g a p l a i n i n t e n t t o m i s u s e t h e t r u t h .

L i e s a r e o f t e n w r o n g a t l e a s t i n p a r t b e c a u s e t h e y a r e b r e a c h e s o f a p r o m i s e t ob e t r u t h f u l , b u t , t o s i m p l i f y m a t t e r s , l e t u s s u p p o s e t h a t t h e r e w e r e n o s u c h p r o m i s -e s i n o u r e x a m p l e s . I t i s e a s y t o i m a g i n e th a t t h e p r o f e s s o r , t h e d y i n g w o m a n ' s s o n ,a n d th e r o o m m a t e n e v e r m a d e a nexpl i i tp r o m i s e t o t e l l t h e t r u t h a s , f o r e x a m p l e ,o n e i s r e q u i r e d t o d o b e f o r e t e s t i f y in g i n c o u r t . T h e m o r e d i f f ic u l t m a t t e r is t o re -m o v e t h e s u s p i c i o n t h a t t h e y m a d e a t a c i t o r i m p l i c i t p r o m i s e to b e t r u t h f u l . R o s sm a i n t a i n e d t h a t w e m a k e s u c h a n i m p l ic i t p r o m i s e e v e ry t im e w e m a k e a n a s s e r ti o n ,a n d s o h e v i e w e d a ll li e s a s b r e a c h e s o f p r o m i s e . B u t t h i s p o s i t i o n , s u r e l y, is i m -p l a u s ib l e . S u p p o s e , f o r e x a m p l e , t w o e n e m i e s d i s t ru s t e a c h o t h e r , h a v e n o d e s ir et o b e h o n e s t w i t h e a c h o t h e r , a n d b o t h k n o w t h is . A s se e m s t o b e c o m m o n i n i n te r -n a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s , t h e y t e ll t h e t r u t h t o e a c h o t h e r o n l y w h e n t h e y e x p e c t t h a tl y i n g w i ll n o t g iv e t h e m a n a d v a n t a g e . I n t h i s s i t u a t i o n w h e n o n e a s s er t s t o th eo t h e r , s a y, t h a t h e h a s d o c u m e n t s d a m a g i n g t o t h e o t h e r ' s p o l it i c a l a m b i t i o n s , w ec a n n o t r e a s o n a b l y i n t e r p r e t t h is a s a p r o m i s e . N e i t h e r p e r s o n b e li e v e s t h a t t h es p e a k e r in t e n d s t o p u t h i m s e l f u n d e r o b l i g a t i o n . G i v e n t h e i r m u t u a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g ,t h e s p e a k e r c a n n o t s e r io u s l y i n t e n d t o l e ad th e o t h e r t o b e l ie v e t h a t h e i s m a k i n g i ta m a t t e r o f c o n s c i e n ce t o c o n v e y t h e tr u t h . F u r t h e r m o r e i f e v e r y a s s er t io n a m o u n t -e d t o a p r o m i s e t o s a y w h a t i s t r u e , w e w o u l d n o t t h i n k , a s i n f a c t w e d o , t h a t a l ie


4/17

2 5 4

preced ed b y an ex p l i c i t p rom ise to be t ru th fu l is usua l ly wo rse than a lie no t p re -ceded by such a p romise . There a re , o f course , impl i c i t p romises bu t i t r equ i res

m o r e t h a n m e r e a s s e rt io n t o m a k e o n e . S u p p o s e , f o r e x a m p l e , M a r y a n d h e r r o o m -m a t e h a d o f t e n d i sc u ss e d h o w t h e y v a l u e d e a c h o t h e r s h o n e s t y a n d f r a n k n e ss , a n deach had on o the r occas ions ins is t ed tha t the o the r t e ll t he t ru th , howe ver pa in fu l ,and ne i the r gave any h in t o f r e se rva t ions abo u t g iv ing and coun t ing on com ple tet r u t h fu l n e s s b e t w e e n t h e m . W i th t h is s p ec ia l b a c k g r o u n d w e m i g h t w a n t t o s a yt h a t t h e y h a d m a d e i m p l i c it p r o m i s e s t o t e ll e a c h o t h e r t h e t r u t h . H o w e v e r, t of o c u s a t t e n t i o n a w a y f r o m p r o m i s e s , l e t u s su p p o s e t h a t i n o u r e x a m p l e s th e r ewere no such spec ia l cond i t ions to c rea te impl i c i t p rom ises to be t ru th fu l .

Our e xam ples a re a l so m ean t to m in imize the fo rce o f u t i l it a r i an cons ide ra t ions

tha t so o f t en t e l l aga inst ly ing . M os t im po r tan t ly, t he li es in o ur s to r i e s a re ex t rem e-ly u n l ike ly to be d i scovered . I t is a mora l i s t s f i c t ion th a t l ie s can never r emainh i d d e n : p e r h a p s a u se f u l fi c t io n , b u t u n t r u e n o n e t h e l es s . I n e a c h o f o u r e x a m p l e sa p e r s o n is a s k e d a b o u t w h a t h e k n o w s o r b e li e v es , a n d i f h e i s d e t e r m i n e d t os t and by h i s re sponse the re i s no p rac t i ca l way o the r s can find ou t tha t he i s ly ing .E v e n i f t h e s t u d e n t s m o t h e r l e a r ns t h a t h e r s o n c o m m i t t e d s u ic id e , sh e c a n n o tkn ow tha t the p ro fe sso r l i ed ; the e lde r ly w om an can f ind ou t th a t she is se r ious lyill, b u t no t tha t he r son l ied abou t h is op in ion ; M ary may l ea rn tha t Jo hn i s s ti lla v a il a bl e , b u t s h e h as n o w a y o f d i sc o v e ri n g t h a t h e r r o o m m a t e k n e w . T h e r e i s, o fcourse , a lwayss o m chance , ho we ver r em ote , th a t those w ho l ie wi l l g ive them -selves aw ay ; fo r ex am ple , they m ay t a lk in the i r s leep . I f t he d i scovery o f the l iewo uld be an u t t e r d i sas t e r, t hen f rom a u t il i t a ri an p o in t o f v iew even th i s ve rysmal l r isk m igh t n o t be wa r ran ted . Bu t to s imp l i fy, l e t u s suppose tha t in our casesd i scovery wou ld no t be d i sas trous . Th e pe r sons d ece ived , l e t u s say, have an un-usua l ly fo rg iv ing and t rus t ing na tu re . I f t hey rea l i zed the spec ia l c i r cums tancesa n d b e n e v o l e n t i n t e n t , t h e y w o u l d f o rg iv e t h e l ie ; a n d , t h o u g h d i s a p p o i n t e d , t h e yw o u l d n o t b e c o m e u n r e a s o n a b l y s u sp i c io u s a n d d i s tr u s tf u l . A g a i n , t y p i c a l l ie s t e n dto mul t ip ly, one l i e ca l l ing fo r ano the r and each l i e mak ing success ive ones eas i e r ;b u t w e c a n i m a g i n e t h is n o t t o b e s o i n o u r e x a m p l e . O u r p ro f e s s o r, d o c t o r / s o n ,a n d r o o m m a t e , l e t u s s u p p o s e , ar e o f f i rm c h a r a c t e r a n d w o u l d l i e o n l y i n t h es p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s w e h a v e d e f i n e d , a n d t h e y d o n o t n e e d a n e n t a n g l e d w e b o ffu r the r decep t ion to h ide the f i r s t .

L i es o f t h e s o r t p i c t u r e d h e r e a r e n o d o u b t r a r e ; b u t , b y m i n i m i z i n g t h e u s u a lc o n s i d e ra t io n s o f u t i li t y a n d p r o m i s e s , th e y e n a b l e u s t o f o c u s o n o t h e r r e le v a n tc o n s i d e ra t io n s , w h i c h m a y b e i m p o r t a n t i n m o r e t y p i c a l c as es as w e l l. I n p a r t ic u l a r,w e c a n r e f le c t o n h o w l ie s c a n fa i l t o r e s p e c t p e rs o n s a u t o n o m y.

I I

W h a t d o e s it m e a n t o r e sp e c t t h e a u t o n o m y o f a p e rs o n ? A u t o n o m y h a s b e e n c o n-ce ived in qu i t e d i ff e ren t ways , and the re a re , accord ing ly, d i ff e ren t p r inc ip les andi d ea ls a s s o c ia t e d w i t h a u t o n o m y. S i nc e m o s t , i f n o t a ll , r e c e n t c o n c e p t i o n s o f


5/17

255

auto nom y have roo ts in K ant ' s wr it ing , a use ful p rocedure ma y be to rev iew Kan t ' st heo ry o f au tonom y and t hen t r a ce ou t seve ra l o the r concep t i ons o f au tonom y to

which one is natural ly led w hen one sets aside some of K ant ' s metaph ysical andmoral presupposi t ions .

Kan t ian au tonom y Kan t he ld t ha t au tonom y is a p rope r ty o f thewill o f ra t iona lbe ing s) To have a wi l l is to be able to cause events in acc ord with pr inciples. T hatis, a ra t ional being has a wi ll insofar as he can m ak e things ha pp en in a wa y whichmakes a pprop ria te explanat ions l ike , H e did (caused) i t , because i t i s h is pr incipleto . .. (o r fo r the reason tha t . . .) . T o have au to nom y i t is a lso necessa ry tha t one ' swill be free in a negative senseThis implies that one is capable of causing eventsw i thout be ing causa lly d e te rmined to do so . Even more rad ica lly, negat ive f reedom

impl ies ab i l ity to cause even ts wi th out be ing mot iva ted in any way by one ' s owndesires. But since will ing requires acting on principles, in order to exercise thiscapac i ty one mus t have some pr inc ip les to w hich one is com m it ted no t because onedesires to fol low them or because the pr inciples are expected to lead one to any-thing o ne desires (or wi ll des i re) . All ra t ional beings , K ant argued, have such pr in-c iples; they a re c om m it ted to them s imply by v i r tue o f be ing ra t iona l. The pr in -ciples are se l f - imposed insofar as they s tem from one 's ra t ional nature ra ther thanf rom fear o f pun ishm ent , des ire fo r approva l , b l ind accep tance o f t rad i t ion , an imalins t inct , and so on. To havea u t o n o m y of th e wi ll i s to be com m it ted to pr inciples

in th i s way and to be ab le and d i sposed to fo l low them .Kan t a rgued fu r ther tha t the p r inc ip les to w hich one i s com m it ted by v ir tue o fone 's a uto no m y are the basic pr inciples of m oral i ty. T his impl ies tha t one is und ermo ral obl igat ion to do some thing i f and only i f i t is required by the pr inciples oneaccepts for oneself as a ra t ional being f ree f rom determining causes and indepen-dent ly of a l l des i re . Nothing e lse can impose moral obl igat ion; t radi t ion, power,eccles ias t ical author i ty, major i ty opinion, and natural d isposi t ions in themselveshave no mora l fo rce . Kant be l ieved tha t he cou ld d raw f rom these ideas morepartic ular m oral re sults which h ave also be en influe ntial in later discussions ofau tonomy. For example , he main ta ined tha t hav ing au tonomy i s the bas i s fo rhum an digni ty, and in par t icular for the idea that ra t ional nature in every personough t to be t rea ted as uncond i t ional ly valuable , above a ll pr ice . Oth er der ivativepr inciples include r ights to a wide area of individual l iber ty and ins is tence onrespect for a l l persons . Given Kant ' s long-s tanding reputat ion for being undulymoral is t ic ,3 i t i s somew hat surpris ing to f ind that the p ar t icular mo ral pr incipleshe sketches in theMetaphysics of Moralsleave so much room for f ree choice .The re are no ends such as pleasure or M oore 's in t r ins ic value wh ich one is moral-ly required to maximize. Within the bounds of basic pr inciples of l iber ty, respect ,l imi ted benef icence , and se l f impro vem ent , e tc . , one m ay pursue one ' s ow n p leasureor oth ers ' , o r wha tever e lse one desi res.

These fundamen ta l f e a tur e s o f Kan t 's t he o ry o f au tono m y a r e no to r i ous ly em-bedded in a metaphys ica l f rame wo rk and sur rounded b y spec i f ic mora l op in ionswhich m os t ph i losophers today, qu i te r igh tly, re jec t. Kant he ld , fo r exam ple , tha ta person ' s commitment to mora l p r inc ip les does no t t ake p lace in space o r t ime


6/17

2 5 6

and is incapable o f empir ical exp lanat ion . Th e uncaused decis ion to fol low thosepr inciples in par t icular s i tuat ions or not a lso belongs to the in te l l ig ible or noum e-

ha l wor ld which is adm i t ted to be beyo nd com prehens ion , even thoug h c r imina lsma y be exec u ted fo r the w rong dec i s ion . Al l o f ou r des ires, w i thou t d i s t inc t ion , a ret r ea t ed t oge the r a s a l i en fo r ces , no t pa r t o f one ' s t r u e s e lf bu t on ly o f onese lfas appearance. Most of Kant ' s specif ic pr inciples , such as the prohibi t ion of ly ing,a re he ld r igor i st ica l ly ; they cann ot be over r idden , they inc lude wi th in them nobui l t - in except ions , and yet they are supposed to bind a l l human beings , a t a l lt imes a nd places . But despi te these u nacce ptable features , K ant ' s the ory suggestsless encum bered ideal s o f au ton om y which c on t inue to have a wide appea l.

S a r t r e a n a u t o n o m y Suppose one is a t t rac ted by Kan t ' s idea tha t one i s mora l ly

boun d by no th ing bu t wha t one imposes on onese l f and a lso by h is den ia l o f de -te rmin ism regard ing human cho ices , bu t one cannot accep t Kant ' s noumenal /phe nom ena l dis t inct ion, h is m oral r igor ism, or his bel ie f in pr inciples of con duc twhich a re necessa r ily ra t iona l fo r everyone . A na tura l resu l t would be accep tanceof wha t I sha l l ca l l Sar t rean au tonomy.4 To say tha t pe rsons a re au tonomous , o rfree , in th is sense has two ma in impl icat ions: (1) Peop le act as the y d o because the ychoose to do so , and the i r cho ices a re no t causa lly de te rmine d ; in fac t no th ing i sto be viewed as a force even par t ia l ly compel l ing a person to act , and this includesthrea t s f rom o thers , on e ' s own desi res and emo t ions , and even so-ca lled compul -

s ions , addict ions , and the l ike . (2) People are moral ly and ra t ional ly f ree to do asthey choose in tha t the re a re no ob jec tive va lues, on ly se l f .imposed com mitm ents .No genera l mora l p r inc ip les fo l low f rom the con ten t ion tha t pe rsons a re au tono-mous in th is sense . A natural ly associa ted pr inciple (which, s t r ic t ly, does not fol -low) i s tha t one should no t deny anyone ' s au tonomy e i ther by t rea t ing h im as i fhe w ere com pel led to ac t as he does o r by mora l izing to h im as i f he were sub jec tto mora l cons t ra in t s no t o f h i s own m aking . Acknow ledging persons ' au to nom y,howev er, would no t requ i re to le ra t ing the i r beh av ior o r even re f ra in ing f rom va luejudgm ents a bou t the i r cho ices fo r, a f t e r a ll, one i s free to m ake and express one ' sow n va lues and these m ay presc ribe oppos i t ion , even v io len t response .

A u t o n o m y a s a p s y c h o lo g i c a l c a p a ci tyKan t i an and Sa r t r e an au tonomy weresupposed to be fea tu res o f a ll huma n be ings , bu t au to no m y is o f ten co nce ived asa charac ter i s ti c o f on ly ma ture , r e f lec t ive persons. A uto no m y on th is v iew is no tfree dom from causal determ inism, s til l less an abi l ity to act inde pen den t ly of de-s i re . I t i s a capaci ty and disposi t ion to make choices in a ra t ional manner ; and thismeans choos ing in the absence of ce r ta in par t icu la r a t t i tudes and inner obs tac les ,such as b lind accep tance o f t rad i t ion and au th or i ty, neuro t ic compuls ions , and thel ike . The parad igms of a person who i s non-au tonomous in th i s sense inc lude thech i ld w ho accep ts au th or i ty wi th out ques t ion , the ado lescen t who rebel s aga ins tau th or i ty wi th as li t tl e un ders tand ing , the t rad it iona li s t w ho wi ll no t cons ider newways of do ing things, the compuls ive gambler who canno t s top gambl ing eventhough he wants to , and the masoch is t and the sad i s t who impuls ive ly hur t them-selves o r o thers w i thou t any idea wh y. This conc ep t ion , l ike Ka nt ' s , tr ea t s au tono -m y as a capac i ty an d d i spos it ion to ma ke ra tiona l cho ices f ree f rom cer ta in a l i en


7/17

2 5 7

f a c t o r s, b u t n o w t h e f a c t o r s ar e m o r e n a r r o w l y c i r c u m s c r ib e d . To b e a u t o n o m o u sone need no t ac t indep end en t ly o f a ll causes and des i re s bu t o n ly f rom ce r t a in

causes and des i r e s which in te r fe re wi th r a t iona l cho ice . The idea l s na tu ra l ly a s -s o c i a te d w i t h t h i s c o n c e p t i o n o f a u t o n o m y a r e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f r a t io n a l ca p a ci -t i es in educ a t ion , the ove rcom ing o f unco nsc ious psycho log ica l d i sab il it i es th rou ghp s y c h o t h e r a p y, a n d t h eu s e o f o n e ' s r a t i o n a l c a p a c it ie s i n m a k i n g i m p o r t a n t c h o ic e s .

A u t o n o m y a s a r ig h tS o m e t i m e s t h e a s s e rt io n t h a t p e r s o n s ar e a u t o n o m o u s is a na t t r i b u t i o n o f a r ig h t r a t h e r t h a n a p s y c h o lo g i c a l c a p a c i t y. To s a y t h a t p e r s o n s h av eau ton om y in th i s sense i s no t a desc r ip t ive s t a t em ent th a t the y a re in f ac t f r ee f romcer ta in in f luences ( such as inne r compuls ions and s l ave ry to conven t ion) bu t in -s t ead a c l a im tha t they ough t to be f r ee f rom ce r t a in in f luences ( inappropr ia t e

i n t e r fe r e n c e b y o t h e r s ). I n s o f a r as th e i d e a h a s r o o t s i n K a n t , i t s t e m s m o r e f r o mhis p r inc ip les o f l ibe r ty and respec t fo r pe r sons than h i s me taphy s ica l doc t r ines .T h o u g h o t h e r r ig h ts h a v e b e e n a s so c i a te d w i t h a u t o n o m y, t h e r ig h t I h a v e i n m i n dis a mo ra l r igh t aga inst ind iv idua ls (n o t the s t a t e ) s ( a ) to m ake o ne ' s ow n dec i s ionsa b o u t m a t t e r s d e e p l y a f f e c t in g o n e ' s l if e , ( b ) w i t h o u t c e r ta i n s o r t s o f i n t e rf e r e n c eby o the r s , ( c ) p rov ided ce r t a in cond i t ions o b ta in . Th e r igh t p resupposes a back-g rou nd o f o the r m ora l r igh t s and l ega l r igh ts wi th in a jus t sy s tem, wh ich de f ine ana rea o f pe rmiss ib le condu c t .

Con s ide r fi r s t ( a ) the a rea o f cho ice to be p ro tec ted . In som e sense on e ' s f r ee -

d o m is li m i t e d w h e n o t h e r s p r e v e n t o n e f r o m b e a t in g u p c h il d r en , en t e ri n g o t h e r s 'h o u s e s a t w i l l, e t c . ; b u t t h e r i g h t o f a u t o n o m y c o n c e r n s d e c is io n s w i t h i n a n a r e a o fmora l ly and l ega l ly pe rmiss ib le conduc t . Fa i r compe t i t ion , when success fu l , cana ls o i n t e r f e r e w i t h w h a t o n e c a n c h o o s e t o d o , a s w h e n s o m e o n e el se w i n s ad e si re d s p o t o n a t e a m o r b u y s t h e l a st c o p y o f a ra r e b o o k . B u t , a g a in a u t o n o m yis no t a r igh t to be success fu l in such com pe t i t ive s i tua tions . M y f r ee do m is a l sol i m i t e d w h e n I c a n n o t c o n t r o l o t h e r s i n m a t t e r s w h i c h p r i m a r i ly a f f e c t t h e m , e .g .m y son ' s cho ice o f co ll ege ma jo r, hi s ha i r s ty le , and h i s da t ing pa r tne r s . Bu t au to no-m y i s u s u a l l y t h o u g h t t o b e f r e e d o m t o m a k e o n e ' s o w n d e c i s i o n s a b o u t m a t t e r sw h i c h m o s t d e e p l y a f f e c t o n e ' s o w n l i fe , n o t t o c o n t r o l o t h e r s i n m a t t e r s w h i c hm o r e s e ri o u sl y a f f e c t t h e m . ~ C o m m o n e x a m p l e s w o u l d b e c h oi c es a b o u t w h a tj o b s t o t a k e ( a m o n g t h o s e f o r w h i c h o n e i s q u a l i f i e d ) , w h a t p e o p l e t o a s s o c i a t ew i t h ( a m o n g t h o s e w i ll in g t o r e c i p r o c a te ) , w h a t b o o k s t o r e a d , w h e r e t o l iv e , e t c .

Even w i th in th i s c i r cum scr ibed a rea , the r igh t o f au to no m y i s on ly a r igh t tom a k e o n e ' s c h o i c e s ( b ) f r e e f r o m c e r t a in i n t e rf e r e n ce s b y o t h e r s . A m o n g t h e s ein te r fe rences a re i l leg i t ima te th rea t s , m an ipu la t ion s , and b lock ing o r d i s to r t ing thep e r c e p t i o n o f o p t i o n s . T h e m o s t o b v i o u s so r t s o f t h r e a t s w h i c h v i o la t e a p e r s o n ' sr i g h t t o m a k e h i s o w n d e c is io n s a re t h r e a t s t o d o t h i n g s w h i c h w o u l d b e w r o n g t od o q u i te a si de f r o m c o n s i d e ra t io n s o f a u t o n o m y : f o r e x a m p l e , th r e a t s t o k il l,m a im , sp read fa lse rum ors , de l ibe ra te ly ru in a ca ree r, o r d i sown a ch i ld . W hen ap e r s o n u s e s s u c h a th r e a t t o c o n t r o l a n o t h e r ' s d e c is io n s , s a y, a b o u t w h o m t om a r r y o r w h e t h e r t o a p p l y f o r a ce r t ai n j o b , t h e n t h e t h r e a t s e e m s es p e c ia l ly w r o n g( m o r e w r o n g , f o r e x a m p l e , t h a n i f t h e t h r e a t s w e r e u s ed t o m a k e s o m e o n e k e e p asec re t no t pe r t a in ing to h i s ow n li f e ). Even th rea t s to do wha t one has a r igh t to do


8/17

258

wou ld be undue i n te r f e rences w i th au to nom y i f t hey had no o the r po in t than t ocon trol ano ther ' s basic l i fe choices . Consider, for exam ple , the classic thre at , I f

you don ' t mar ry me (go to bed wi th me , e tc . ) , I wi l l mar ry the f i r s t woman whowill have me ( jum p o ff a c l i ff , jo in a m ona stery , e tc . ) . Such a threa t i s obviouslydes igned to con t ro l ano ther ' s dec i s ion , no t mere ly to exp la in one ' s con t ingencyplans . I t wo uld be qui te a di fferen t s i tuat ion, and not an il legit imate threa t , i f a tsome point in a long re la t ionship a person expressed a genuine condi t ional in ten-t ion fo r w hich h e ( o r she) had go od reasons indepen dent ly o f a des ire to con t ro lano the r ' s cho ice : fo r example , i f you do no t m ar ry me (go to bed wi th me , e tc . ) ,I i n tend t o l ook fo r a new pa r tne r.

Manipu la t ion , b road ly conce ived , can perhaps be unders tood as in ten t iona l ly

caus ing or encourag ing people to make the dec i s ions one wants them to make byac t ive ly p romot ing the i r m aking the dec is ions in ways tha t ra t iona l pe rsons wouldno t w ant to ma ke their decis ions . Obvious examp les wo uld be subl iminal adver-t is ing, pos t -hyp not ic suggestions m ade to non- con sent ing subjects , bra in-w ashing ,get t ing som eone dru nk or drugged befo re a m ajor decis ion, br ibes appeal ing to aperson 's weaknesses , p laying on a pe rson 's n euro t ic gui l t feel ing, color ing cer ta inop t ions b lack by ins inua t ion , and so on . But fu l ly ra t iona l pe rsons no t on ly wantto mak e th eir im po rtan t decis ions f ree f rom these subvers ions of the del iberat iveprocess ; they a l so want to have the oppor tun i ty to know the i r op t ions and to re -

f lect on any re levant considerat ions for and against each opt ion. In shor t , a ra-t iona l dec i sion ma ker wants no t o n ly to have a c lea r head and ab i l i ty to respondwise ly to the cho ice p rob lems p resen ted to h im; he w ants al so to see the p rob lemsand the imp or tan t fac t s tha t bear on the m rea li s ti ca lly and in perspec t ive . Thus onecan a l so manipu la te a p erson by feed ing h im in form at ion se lect ive ly, by cover ingup per t inen t evide nce, and by plant ing false c lues in o rder to give a dis tor tedp ic tu re o f the p rob lem s i tua t ion .

Manipu la t ion impl ies an ac tua l in ten t to con t ro l ano the r person by ge t t ing h imto make dec is ions we want h im to m ake ; bu t o ne can also fa i l to ho nor persons 'r igh t to make the i r o wn dec is ions when o ne knowingly and ac t ive ly in te r fe res wi ththe i r opp or tu n i ty to see the s ign i ficant cho ices tha t the c i rcumstances o ffe r, even i fsuch in te r fe rence i s on ly a fo reseen , un in tende d con sequence of wha t one pr imar i lyin tends to do . Suppose I liked very mu ch the p ic tu re on a pos te r announc ing aschola rsh ip c om pet i t ion fo r s tudy abroad and so , no t ca ring a t al l wh e ther anyon emight ap p ly fo r the schola rsh ip o r no t , I too k the pos te r to decora te my off ice .Though my in ten t ion was no t to manipu la te anyone ' s cho ices , I s t i l l knowinglyand e ffec t ive ly p reven ted o thers f rom making cho ices tha t migh t s ign i f i can t lyaffec t thei r l ives. Or, again , suppose a fa th er explained to his angry, newly fem inis tdaughte r : W hen I taught yo u to be ' femin ine , ' I never me ant to keep you f romchoos ing to be a p i lo t ( jocke y, su rgeon) ; I on ly w anted yo u to b e po pula r and f i tin we l l . By th is he migh t avo id the charge o fm nipul tingher ca reer cho ice , bu tno t the mo re genera l charge tha t he had fa i led to h ono r her r igh t to make suchchoices wi thout undue in te r fe rence ; a t l eas t th i s i s so , i f the means by which shewas taught to be fem in ine were p red ic tab ly ones which kep t her f rom rea l iz ing


9/17

259

tha t she had cho ices o ther than be ing a housewife , mod e l , e tc .Mos t o f us , su re ly, be li eve in a m ora l r igh t o f au to no m y on ly (c ) p rov ided ce r-

ta in condi t ions obtain . Most obviously, the r ight makes sense only when i ts pos-sessor has a t leas t a minium capac i ty for ra t ional ch oice . But pe rfect ra t ion al i ty isno t a p re requ is it e . We do no t ho ld tha t pe rsons have a r igh t to make the i r ow ndecis ions only so long as the y will decide in a perf ect ly ra t ional way, and thatthere fore we may in te r fe re wi thany predictably i r ra t ional decis ion. The a t t i tudehere is akin to the way many bel ieve we should view autonomous s ta tes . At leas ti f they are fun ct ioning p ol i tical /legal systems (not , fo r exam ple , in anarc hy orv io len t revo lu t ion) and they a re opera t ing wi th in some m in ium s tandards o f jus t ice ,i t i s genera l ly tho ught inappropr ia te fo r o ther count r ies to in te r fe re wi th the i r

in te rna l dec i s ions , even i f l ike ly to be imper fe c t o r s tup id . Othe r na t ions shouldnot , fo r exam ple , t ry to c on t ro l the ou tc om e of the i r e lec t ions o r legis la tive p rocessby th rea t s , p ropaganda , o r c i rcu la ting false rumors . Th is idea o f the au ton om y ofna t ions i s o f te n d i sregarded , o f course , jus t a s the a u to nom y o f ind iv idua l s is o f tenignored ; bu t i t i s st il l an ideal which m any profess .

The r igh t o f au ton om y o f ind ividua l s is also c om m only u nders tood to be qua li -f ied by a proviso tha t in te r fe rence i s no t requ i red to aver t a major d i saste r o r topreven t the v io la t ion of o ther, more s t r ingen t r igh t s . I f , fo r example , the on lywa y to persuade som eon e to m ake a dec is ion that w i ll prev ent a r io t or a ser ies of

murders were to make an o therwise impermiss ib le th rea t o r a non- ra t iona l appea lto h is w eaknesses , then sure ly m os t would g ran t tha t such in te r fe rence would bejus ti f ied . Tho ugh impo r tan t , au tono m y need no t be cons idered an abso lu te r igh t .

Autonomy as capacity for distinctly human values A cen t ra l f ea tu re o f Kant ' stheo ry of a u to no m y was h i s be l ie f tha t hu ma n be ings can and do va lue some th ingsin w ays tha t an imals do no t . Hu ma n be ings have d ign i ty, Ka nt thought , becausethey have d i s t inc tive ly hum an concerns which e leva te them in our es t imat ion aboveanimals . Most o f us , no do ubt , wi ll d isagree w ith K ant ' s tend en cy to iden t i fy thesespecia l conc erns w i th respe ct for purely ra t ional mo ral pr inciples , acce pted indepen-

den t ly of a ll des i re ; bu t a res idue of his v iew ma y have wider appeal . Le t us say thatpersons have au ton om y in th is res idual sense i f and o nly i f (a) a t leas t some o f theirva lues a re no t s imply ins t inc tua l responses to an imm edia te env i ronm ent , and (b )they va lue and a re d i sposed to b r ing about some s ta tes o f a ffa ir s w i thou t ex pec t ingtha t these s ta tes o f a ffa i rs will b ring them p leasure (o r o ther goo d exper iences )o r p r even t pa in (o r o the r bad expe r i ences ) f o r t hem, o r a t l ea s t t hey do no t va luethose s ta tes o f affa i rsfor the sake of the pleasure (avoidance of pain , e tc . ) whichthey expect wi l l resul t . To say that human beings are autonomous in th is senseimpl ies the den ia l o f severa l fo rms of psycholog ica l hedonism ; fo r au tonom ouspersons no t on ly va lue and a im for mo re than the i rmost favorable pleasure/painrat io , the y a lso have some values and a ims which are not for the sakeof any antic-ipa ted p leasure (o r p reven t ion o f pa in). W hat i s no t den ied , howe ver, is the theo rytha t ea r ly p leasan t and pa infu l exper iences are among the causes o f our deve lop ingthe values we h ave.

Th a t hum an be ings a re au tono mo us in the residual sense jus t de f ined seems qu ite


10/17

260

obvious , once this is proper ly unders tood. Even set t ing as ide moral values , surelypeop le can and do som et imes care tha t the i r chi ldren survive and thr ive af ter the y,

the paren t s , a re dead and incapab le o f en joy ing any th ing . Th ey a lso wan t tha tpeople n o t l augh a t them beh ind the i r backs , even though the y wi ll never know .N ot a ll such values are a l t ruis t ic , of course; for I m ight w ant m y enemies to sufferhor r ib ly a f te r I am dead . To say tha t the concerns in these cases a re rea l ly de-sires fo r one ' s own good exper iences (o r avo idance o f bad exper iences ) is su re lya mis take . My desi re tha t my ch i ld ren th r ive and m y enemies suffe r a f te r m ydeath is not a desi re to have the pleasure ofthinking that the chi ldren wil l thr iveand th e enemies suffe r. Y ou would no t fu lf i ll my des ire if , a f t e r m y dea th , yo utor tu red my ch i ld ren and rewarded my enemies bu t had ea r l i e r g iven me the fa l se

p leasure o f be lieving tha t yo u w ould do the reverse. W hat one does no t know, per-haps , does no thur t one ; bu t some t imes wewant s ta tes of affa i rs about which wewi ll never know .

W hat ideals a nd pr inciples are associa ted w ith th is conc ep t ion of au ton om y?Much of w ha t we respec t and cher ish in hum an be ings, which i s l ack ing in (mo s t? )an imals , i s a t l eas t dependent on th i s human capac i ty to va lue more than what i simmedia te ly before them and more than agreeab le exper iences fo r themse lves .More im por ta n t ly, I be li eve tha t m any o f us a t leas t impl ic i tly accep t the fo l lowingprinciple : First in dea l ing wi th competen t human be ings who a re no t v io la t inganyo ne ' s r igh t s , one should no t p resume th a t th ey pre fe r the i r ow n com for t (op t i -mal exper iences ) over o the r va lues ( such as the wel fa re o f o thers , the com ple t ionof a project , se l f -awareness , e tc . ) ; and,second wh en one a ims to do som eth ingforothers ( say, f rom gra t i tude , char i ty, o r love) , one should no t count the i r comfor t(op t ima l exper iences ) as mo re im por tan t than va lues which th ey s incere ly dec la reto be more impor tan t to them, p rov ided a t l eas t the dec la red va lue i s no t a v io la -t ion of o thers ' r igh ts , no t the resu lt o f m om enta ry impulse , man ipu la t ion , obv ious-ly fa lse bel ief , e tc . O ne w ould viola te th is pr inciple , for exa m ple , i f one t reatedelder ly but co m pe ten t pe ople l ike smal l chi ldren or pets , car ing scrupulou sly forthe i r comfor t and phys ica l we l l -be ing bu t ignor ing any des i re they might expressabout wha t happens in the wor ld ou ts ide the conf ined a rea which they can ex-per ience o r check on .

Autonomy as an ideal rational l ife.A pe r son cou ld have au tonomy in some o fthe p reced ing senses b u t l ack au ton om y in o the r senses. One cou ld , fo r exam ple ,have ra t ional decis ion-making capaci t ies but s t i l l be manipulated by those whocont ro l one ' s in format ion , o r the oppos i te . One cou ld have a r igh t to make one ' sow n dec is ions b u t b e incapab le o f ca r ing fo r any th ing bu t maximiz ing one ' s p lea -sures; a l ternat ively, one cou ld have a l l mann er o f dis t inct ively hum an values bu tlack b oth the r ight and the psycholog ical capaci t ies to pursu e these values in theways a ra t ional person would want . These possibi l i t ies suggest a f inal concept iono f au tonom y, wh ich combines s eve ra l o the r s and adds one fu r t he r f e a tu r e .

Le t us say tha t pe rsons have a u to nom y, o r live au ton om ous ly, in a f ina l sense i fthe fol lowing is t rue: (1) Th ey have the psychological capaci ties for ra t ional de-c i sion making which a re assoc ia ted wi th a u ton om y; (2 ) the y ac tua l ly use these


11/17

261

capacit ies whe n they face imp ortant choice s i tuat ions; (3) they have the r ight o fau ton om y discussed previously, i .e. a fight to ma ke m orally and legally permis-

s ible decis ions ab out m at ters deeply affect ing their ow n lives f ree f rom threats andm anipulat ion b y others ; (4) other people a ctual ly respect this r ight as wel l as theirothe r figh ts; (5) t he y are able and disposed to have distinctly hu m an values; (6)others respect this capaci ty by no t presuming that the y value only good experiencesfor themselves and by not count ing their comfort more important than their de-clared values; an d, f inal ly, (7) the y have ample op portuni t ies to ma ke use of thesecon ditions in living a l ife over which th ey have a high degree o f co ntrol.

This last poin t requires special ex plana tion. One m ight at f irst thin k it sufficientfor an ideal ra t ional l i fe to have the capaci t ies , r ights , and good t reatment f rom

others indicated in (1 )-( 6) ; bu t fur ther ref lect ion quickly shows otherwise. Evenif (1) -( 6) were t rue, people could st ill f ind themselves unable to ma ke use of thesefavorable condi t ions for any of several reasons. For example though rat ional lydisposed to ma ke the best of their s i tuat ion and unhindered by threa ts and manipu-lat ion by othe rs , they might be severely c onfined in the choices the y co uld mak e bywidespread p overty, disease, o verpopulat ion, and absence of technolog y andcul ture . Even i f i t i s no one 's faul t , when one has to labor in the f ields a ll day tosurvive, one has l i t t le opportunity to l ives a rational person controlling his l ife.The choice to labor m ay be perfect ly ra t ional, of course; but i t m ay be almost the

only rat ional choice one has a chance to m ake. Harsh condi t ions also restr ic t therange of moral ly permissible choices: one cann ot do phi losophy i f one m ust m inecoal to feed one 's chi ldren. Opportuni t ies to l ive an ideal ly ra t ional l ife m ay be fur-ther res t r ic ted by pointless role-expectat ions, conform ist a t t i tudes , and the lack ofwh at M ill cal led experim ents in l iving. A nd even thoug h one may be able toselect f rom many brands of soup and cosmetics , i f communal values are lost in acapitalist ic society th en m ore significant options are effective ly closed. Fin ally,and significantly for present purposes, opportunities for rational, self-controlledliving are restricted when one does not know the reali t ies of his choice situations.I could be able and eager to seek inform ation, to ref lect cr i tical ly, to be o n guardagainst man ipulat ion an d neurot ic pat terns , an d to decide rat ional ly on the basisof m y bel iefs , but s til l I wou ld not real ly be in ra tional control of m y l i fe i f m y be-l iefs abo ut m y s i tuat ion were drastically mistaken. Op portuni t ies to learn the rele-van t facts are also need ed.

III

How might the pr inciples and ideals of autonomy we have considered help to ex-plain the intuit ive feeling th at, even in ou r special cases, benev olent lies are to som edegree object ionable? I will pass over Ka nt 's con cept ion o f au ton om y as a respectedancestor o f la ter concep t ions b ut n ot i tself a viable op t ion. I a lso can not accept theSartrean conce pt ion, and in any case i t offers l i tt le help with o ur problem . The o nlyrelevant principle suggested by th e Sa rtrean conc eptio n is tha t on e should no t lie in


12/17

262

bad fa i th , tha t i s, p re tend ing to onese l f , whe n one rea l ly know s be t te r, tha t al ie is necessary because the t ruth wouldm k e someone do someth ing undes i rab le

or because comfo r t ing som eone whe n i t causes no harm is anobjective du ty. Theidea l o f deve lop ing the psycholog ica l capac i t i es assoc ia ted wi th au tonomy maygive some reason to hesi ta te to te l l l ies to pro tec t peop le f rom painful real i ties ,bu t no t a reason that appl ies in a ll cases. Pr oba bly, as a rule , having to face un-p leasan t t ru ths abou t mat te r s deep ly a ffec t ing one 's l if e he lps one to deve lop thecapaci ty for mature , ref lect ive decis ion making. I f so , there would be a generalpresu mp tion against ben evo lent l ies , even i f i t w ould no t a lways be persuasive as ,fo r e xam ple , when we a re dea l ing wi th the very e lder ly whose capac it ies have pre -sumably a l ready been deve loped as m uch as they wi l l be .

I f we be l ieve in theright o f au ton om y, howeve r, we have more r ea son t o ob j ec tto benevo len t lie s. Th is is mo s t obv ious in ou r example o f the r oom ma te ly ing tokeep her f r i end f rom re -un i ting wi th he r ex- lover. The ro om ma te man ipu la tes herf r i end 's dec i sion ( to ca ll o r no t to ca ll he r ex - ) by ac t ive ly concea ling per t inen tin forma t ion . I f we accep t the r igh t o f au tonom y, th is cou ld on ly be jus t i fi ed i fthe reun ion w ould hav e been so great a disaster that the r ight is over-r idden. Ino the r cases the r igh t o f au to no m y m ay be v io la ted bu t in a less obv ious wa y. Theprofessor and the doc tor / son , fo r exa mple , d id n o t li e in o rder to con t ro l thedec is ions o f the people they dece ived ; they on ly wanted to spare them avoidable

pain . Never theless , there were important , l i fe-a l ter ing decis ions which the deceivedmight have m ade i f they had no t bee n depr ived of re levan t in form at ion ; and sure lythe p rofessor and the doc to r / son knew th is . They knowingly p reven ted ce r ta in op-t ions p resen ted b y the real s i tua t ion f ro m ever be ing faced by the people they de-ceived: to pray or not , and, i f so , how; to cont inue l i fe as usual or to re-orderone ' s p r io r i t i e s ; to face dea th and t ragedy s to ica l ly o r to be open in a new waywith f r iends .

Som eone m ay ob jec t as fo l lows : Som et ime s benevo len t l ie s in te r fe re wi th li fe -a l te r ing dec is ions , bu t no t a lways ; o f te n benevo len t lie s mere ly keep people f ro m

suffe r ing unnecessa r i ly because o f someth ing which they can do no th ing about .When , f o r examp le , a w idow demands t o know whe the r he r husband su ff e red whenhe was ki lled in the w ar, there is l i t t le she cando i f she i s to ld t ru th fu l ly tha t he d iedin hor r ib le agony. And s imi la r ly, i f the su ic ide ' s mother had been bedr idden andte rmina l ly ill, the p rofessor ' s lie would no t have in te r fe red wi th any im por ta n tdecis ions .

Th e app ropria te respon se, I th ink, i s th is : B enev olent l ies do not necessar i ly ora lways v io la te the r igh t o f au tonomy, bu t we should no t be has ty in conc lud ingtha t a pa r t icular l ie does n ot con cern a ny s ignificant decis ions . G oo d novel is ts andbiographers k now wha t ph i losophers too eas ily fo rge t , nam ely, tha t the mos t im-por tan t dec i s ions in l i f e a re no t a lways about ex te rna l behav ior, about wha t todoin the pub l ic w or ld . How we face dea th , fami ly t ragedy, our o wn successes andfai lures , and the wa y o thers t reat us , is par t ly a m at te r o f decis ion, as Sar t reansknew but exaggera ted . Evenwhether to see a si tua tion as success or failure, tragicor ro u t ine , i s no t s imply a m at te r o f p e rcep t ion of fac t . We can a lso in te r fe re wi th


13/17

2 6 3

these l i f e -a l te r ing dec i s ions , o r p reven t a pe r son f rom fac ing the m , b y keep ing cer-t a in t ru ths f rom h im - even i f he i s imm obi le fo r the r e s t o f h is l if e .7

Cons ide r nex t the p r inc ip les a s soc ia t ed wi th au to no m y as a capac i ty fo r d i s t inc t -l y h u m a n v a lu e s. T h e i r i m p l i c a ti o n s f o r b e n e v o l e n t li es d e p e n d u p o n w h a t w e k n o wa b o u t t h e p r e f e re n c e s o f t h e p e r s o n t o b e d e c e i ve d . S u p p o s e , fi rs t , t h a t w e h a v e n oreason to do ub t tha t the q ues t ione r wa n t s an hones t answer. Hi s ques t ion i s in e f -f ec t an express ion o f a des ir e to k no w the t ru th . To g ive h im les s because we wan tt o s p a re h i m p a i n w o u l d b e t o c o u n t h i s c o m f o r t m o r e i m p o r t a n t t h a n w h a t h e h i m -se l f p ro fesses to v a lue m ore an d so wo uld be co n t ra ry to ou r p r inc ip les .

S o m e t i m e s , o f c o u r s e, p e o p l e a s k q u e s t io n s w a n t i n g t o b e re a s su r e d r a t h e r t h a nto l ea rn the t ru th . Wh a t shou ld we do i f we have ind i rec t ev idence tha t the ques -

t i o n e r d o e s n o t r e a ll y w a n t t o k n o w ? M u c h d e p e n d s , I t h i n k , o n th e n a t u r e a n ds t reng th o f the ev idence . Suppose , fo r example , the ev idence i s r a the r even lymix ed : the pe r son o f t en sh r inks f rom pa in fu l rea l it i es bu t , on the o the r hand , heasked in a se rious ton e , he never sa id in advance no t to r evea l the so r t o f f ac t inques t ion , and the t ru th i s no t ou t s ide the r ange o f answers he cou ld an t i c ipa te .O f t e n w h e n w e a re i n d o u b t w h e t h e r a p e r s o n r e a l ly p r e f e rs w h a t h e p ro f e ss e s , w ec a n r e m o v e t h e u n c e r t a i n t y b y a s k in g f u r t h e r q u e s t io n s ; b u t t h e p e c u l i a ri t y o f t h ed i l e m m a o f t h e w o u l d - b e b e n e v o l e n t l ia r i s t h a t h e c a n n o t r e so l v e t h e u n c e r t a i n t yt h is w a y . To as k , W o u l d y o ureally p r e f e r t h e t r u t h e v e n t h o u g h i t w i ll h u r t ?

i s in e ffe c t to g ive away the answer. When faced wi th such m ixed ev idence and un-r e so l v a bl e u n c e r t a i n t y, o n e g u i d e d b y o u r p r in c i p le s o f a u t o n o m y w o u l d , I b e li e v e,aga in be d i sposed to t e ll t he t ru th ; fo r r e spec t ing a pe r son ' s capa c i ty fo r d i s t inc t lyhu m an va lues impl i e s tha t , o the r th ings equa l , i t is worse to p resume tha t som e-o n e p r e fe r s c o m f o r t t o s o m e o t h e r d e c la r ed v a l u e t h a n t o p r e s u m e t h e o p p o s i t e , a

I f the re were de f in i t ive ev idence tha t the ques t ione r p re fe r red no t to l ea rn thep a i n f u l t r u t h , t h e n a u t o n o m y a s a c a p a c i t y f o r d i s t i n c t l y h u m a n v a l u e s w o u l d n o tbe r e l evan t . Th i s wou ld be the case i f , fo r exam ple , the qu es t ione r had exp l i c i tlyreques ted in advance no t to be to ld the t ru th in spec i f i ed c i r cums tances , and then ,l a t e r, those c i r cums tances a rose and amp le ev idence ind ica ted tha t he had no tchanged h i s mind .

Such cases , how ever, a re p ro bab ly r a re . No rma l ly even i f a pe r son has p rev ious lyasked no t to be to ld the t ru th , h i s subsequen t ques t ion ra i ses l eg i t ima te doub t sab ou t h i s cu r ren t p re fe rences . Supp ose the ea r l ie r r eques t was no t m ade in an t ic ipa -t ion o f a pe r iod o f inco m pe ten ce - l i ke Ulysses ' r eques t to h i s c rew be fo re fac ingthe S i rens ( D on ' t l i s t en to w ha t I s ay l a t e r ) . Then the would -be l ia r is app aren t lyfaced w i th tw o conf l i c t ing reques t s : an ea r li e r r eques t fo r decep t ion , and a l a t e r r e -ques t fo r t ru th . Un less the re a re independen t r easons fo r d i scoun t ing the l a t t e r, o rf o r n o t t r e a ti n g t h e l a t e r q u e s t i o n a s a r e q u e st f o r t ru t h , t h e n o n e m i g h t a rg u e t h a tr e s p e c t f o r a u t o n o m y g i v es p r e c e d e n c e t o t h e m o r e r e c e n t r e q u e s t. O t h e r th i n g se q u a l, w e r e s p e c t a p e r s o n ' s a u t o n o m y m o r e b y a l lo w i n g ch a n g e s o f m i n d , h o n o r i n gw h a t h edoes p r o f e ss t o v a lu e o v e r w h a t h edid profess to va lue .

T h e m a n y - s i d e dMeal of au tonomous l iv ing wi l l u sua l ly g ive fu r the r r eason fo rhes i t a t ing to t el l b enev o len t l ie s. Even i f benevo len t li e s do n o t v io la t e aright


14/17

2 6 4

the y s ti ll dep r ive p eop le o f a r ea li s ti c p ic tu re o f the i r s i tua t ion . Inso fa r a s hav ingsuch a r ea l is t ic p ic tu re i s need ed fo r genu ine r a t iona l con t ro l ove r on e ' s li f e, t o th a t

e x t e n t t h e b e n e v o l e n t l ia r f ai ls t o p r o m o t e a n i d e a l e n d . 9I t m a y b e o b j e c t e d t h a t t h is a rg u m e n t s u p p o r t s t h e d e s i ra b i li ty o f v o l u n t e er i n g

t h e t r u t h j u s t a s m u c h a s it s u p p o r t s t h e d e s ir a b i li ty o f n o t a c t i v e ly d e p ri v in g s o m e -o n e o f t h e t r u t h ; a n d y e t , it m i g h t b e s ai d , i t i s c o u n t e r - in t u i t iv e t o s u p p o s e t h a t w eh a v e a s m u c h r e a s o n t o v o l u n t e e r p a i n f u l t r u t h s a s to t e l l t h e m w h e n d i r e c t l y a s ke d .Th e idea l d oes g ive r eason to vo lun tee r the t ru th , I t h ink , bu t th e re a re al so r easonsw h y l y i n g in r e s p o n s e t o a d ir e c t q u e s t io n i s w o r s e t h a n m e r e l y n o t v o l u n t e e r in gt h e t r u t h . T h e r e is a g e n e ra l p r e s u m p t i o n t h a t o n e s h o u ld n o t c a u se av o i d a b le p ai nto o the r s , b u t th i s p re sum pt ion is a t l eas t pa r t i a l ly se t a s ide wh en the pe r son re -

q u e s ts t h e p a i n f u l t r e a t m e n t f o r t h e s a k e o f so m e t h i n g h e w a n t s : e .g . p a i n f u l m e d i -ca l te s t s . Thus , a l though the re is a genera l p res um pt ion aga ins t express ing t ru th sw h i c h c a u s e p a in , t h i s p r e s u m p t i o n is a t l e a st p a r t i a ll y s e t a si de w h e n a c o m p e t e n tp e r s o n a s k s f o r t r u t h ; b u t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n i s n o t s e t a s id e w h e n o n e s i m p l y v o l u n -t e e r s t h e t r u t h w i t h o u t b e i n g a s k e d . T h u s , th o u g h t h e i d ea l o f a u t o n o m y g iv ess o m e r e a s o n f o r v o l u n t e e r in g p a i n f u l i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t s o m e o n e ' s l if e , t h e c as efo r vo lun tee r in g is no t a s s t rong as the case fo r t e ll ing the t ru th w hen asked .

A n o t h e r o b j e c t i o n m i g h t b e t h is : S o m e t i m e s w e n e e d t o li e i n o r d e r to in -c rease the chances tha t a pe r so n wi ll m ake h i s own dec i s ions ( and so l ive au to no -

m o u s l y ) . F o r e x a m p l e , w h e n m y s o n as k e d m e w h e r e I w a n t e d h i m t o g o to c o ll eg e ,I l i e d , t e l l i n g h i m t h a t I d i d n o t c a r e . A c t u a l l y I w a n t e d v e r y m u c h f o r h i m t o g ow h e r e I w e n t ; b u t I f ig u r e d th a t h e c o u l d m a k e u p h is o w n m i n d b e t t e r i f I k e p tm y p r e f er e n c e to m y s e l f .

The ob jec t ion po in t s to a p rac t i ca l p rob lem d i ff i cu l t t o r e so lve in r ea l cases , bu ti t d o e s n o t , I th i n k , s h o w t h a t t h e id e a l o f a u t o n o m y u n e q u i v o c a ll y r e c o m m e n d sl y i n g e v e n i n t h e e x a m p l e j u s t p r e s e n t e d .ne aspec t o f idea l , t o be su re , was en -c o u r a g i n g p e o p l e t o m a k e t h e i r i m p o r t a n t d e c i s i o n s i n a r a t i o n a l w a y f r e e f r o mi n n e r p s y c h o l o g i c al o b s t a c l e s s u c h a s n e u r o t i c n e e d f o r a f a t h e r ' s a p p r o v a l . T h u s ,i f t h e s o n i n o u r e x a m p l e w a s s o d o m i n a t e d b y h i s f a t h e r ' s o p i n i o n s t h a t h e c o u l dno t ma ke a r a t iona l ch o ice on ce h i s f a the r expressed h i s des ir e s , t he n one aspec to f t h e i d e al o f a u t o n o m y w o u l d u rg e t h e f a t h e r t o h i d e h is o p i n i o n . B u t l e t u ss u p p o s e , a s i n o u r p r e v i o u s e x a m p l e s , t h e p e r s o n d e c e i v e d i s r a t i o n a l l y c o m p e t e n tw i th r e spec t to h i s cho ice p rob lem an d so i s no t a s lave to h i s f a the r ' s wi shes . Int h i s ca s e a n o t h e r a s p e c t o f t h e i d e a l o f a u t o n o m y w o u l d u rg e t h e f a t h e r t o e x p r e s sh i s wishes : he shou ld m ake c l ea r bo th th a t he p re fe r s h i s son to go to h i s o ldco l lege a nd a l so tha t he w an t s h i s son to dec ide on the bas i s o f wha t he , the son ,m o s t w a n t s . T h i s p u t s t h e p e r t i n e n t f a c t s o n t h e t a b l e , g iv in g t h e s o n a n o p p o r t u n i -t y h e w o u l d h a v e o t h e r w i s e l a c k e d , n a m e l y, t o c h o o s e w h e t h e r t o g iv e w e i g h t t oh i s f a t h e r ' s w i s h e s o r n o t a n d , i f s o , w h i c h w i s h t o c o u n t m o r e i m p o r t a n t . B yl y in g , t h e f a t h e r w o u l d h a v e h e l p e d t h e s o n m a k e a s e l f- i n te r e s te d c h o i ce ; b u t ,a s w e h a v e s ee n , o n e ' s a u t o n o m o u s c h o i c e i s n o t a l w a y s s e lf - in t e re s te d . To m a k eu p o n e ' s o w n m i n d i s n o t n e c e ss a ri ly t o d e c id e w i t h o u t r e g a r d f o r o t h e r s ' w i s h e sb u t t o d e c i d e m a t u r e l y i n t h e l ig h t o f th e f a c t s a b o u t t h e s i t u a ti o n .


15/17

2 6 5

S o f a r w e h a v e c o n s id e r e d w a y s in w h i c h p r i n c ip l e s a n d i d e a ls o f a u t o n o m yhe lp to exp la in w hy we v iew even bene vo len t li es as to some degree ob jec t ion ab le ;

bu t w e a lso have in tu i tive op in ions abo u t w hich so r t o f l ie s (o r decep t ions ) a rew o r s e t h a n o t h e r s . L e t u s c o n s id e r, t h e n , w h e t h e r c o n s i d e r a t io n s o f a u t o n o m y h e l pto exp la in these in tu i t ions a s we l l.

To cons ide r seve ra l f ac to r s toge the r, I suppose i t i s commonly accep ted tha tdecep t ive r e sponses to ques t ions a re worse , o the r th ings equa l , when (a ) the r e -sponse i s a d i r ec t l ie r a the r th an a mere ly evas ive , mis l ead ing , o r decep t ive ly ambig-uous r e sponse , (b ) the pe r so n dece ived t rus t s the dece ive r and was encouraged todo so , and (c ) the lie con ce rns the l i f e o f the dece ived ra the r than m a t t e r s on lyr e m o t e l y t o u c h i n g h i m . T h e li es o f th e r o o m m a t e a n d t h e d o c t o r / s o n d e s c r ib e d

ea r li e r ex em pl i fy the f 't rs t so r t . An exam ple o f the second , le s s s ign if i can t so r t o fd e c e p t i o n m i g h t b e t hi s: A p e r s o n a s k s m e , s i m p l y f r o m c u r i o s i ty, " D o y o u k n o ww h e t h e r s o - an d -s o i s g a y ? " , a n d , th o u g h I k n o w , I a n sw e r, " H o w w o u l d I k n o w ? "

N ow u t i l it a r i ans w i ll have fami l i a r exp lana t ions w hy the f i r st so r t o f l ie is r e -g a r d e d a s m o r e s e ri o u s t h a n t h e s e c o n d ; b u t i t i s w o r t h n o t h i n g t h a t o u r p ri n c ip l e sa n d i d ea l s o f a u t o n o m y p r o v i d e a n a l te r n a ti v e , o r a d d i ti o n a l , e x p l a n a ti o n . I n b r ie f ,o n e ' s o p p o r t u n i t y t o l iv e in r a t io n a l c o n t r o l o f o n e ' s li fe i s i n c r ea s e d w h e n t h e r ea re peop le on e can un mis tak en ly iden t i fy a s p rep a red to g ive s t r a igh t , hon es t an -s w e rs t o d i re c t p o i n t e d q u e s t io n s . I f o n e d o e s n o t w a n t t o k n o w, o n e c a n re f r a in

f ro m ask ing ; i f t he f i rs t answ er i s evasive o r amb iguous , sugges ting a r e luc tance o nt h e o t h e r ' s p a r t t o r e v e a l t h e t r u t h , t h e n o n e c a n c h o o s e t o p u t t h e q u e s ti o n a g ai nm o r e p o i n t e d l y o r t o b a c k o f f ; a n d i f o n e d o e s i ns is t ( " I w a n t a s tr a ig h t , h o n e s ta n s w e r " ) , t h e n , w h i le a l lo w i n g f o r h o n e s t e r ro r s , o n e c a n m a k e i m p o r t a n t d e -c i sions wi th m ore con f idence th a t one und ers t ands the r ea l s i tua t ion . T o l ive in aw o r l d w i t h o u t p e o p l e w e c a n r e l y o n i n t h is w a y w o u l d b e t o li ve i n a w o r l d inwh ich we have l es s con t ro l o ve r ou r lives . U t i l i t a ri ans o f t e n s t r e s s the unp leasan t -ness tha t r e su l ts w hen lie s which v io la te t rus t be com e d iscovered , and fo r th i sr e a s o n o u r e x a m p l e s w e r e d e s ig n e d t o m i n i m i z e t h e r is k o f d i s co v e r y. B u t n o w i te m e rg e s t h a t i d e a l s o f a u t o n o m y n o t o n l y o p p o s e u n d i s c o v e r a b l e b e n e v o l e n t l i e s ;they a l so op pose l ie s wh ich r i sk d i scove ry o f a b re ach o f t rus t~ fo r d i scovery o fsuch l i es enco urages us to be d i s t rus t fu l and susp ic ious and so l es s ab le to m ake useof even the hones t answers t rus twor thy pe r sons g ive us ; and th i s l imi t s our op-por tun i t i e s fo r r a t iona l c on t ro l ov e r our l ives .

I V

These conc lus ions , o f course , a re bo t h h yp o th e t i ca l and in tu i t ive : tha t i s, t he a r-g u m e n t h a s b e e n t h a t i f o n e a c c e p t s c e r ta i n p r in c i p le s o f a u t o n o m y, t h e n o n e h a sr e a so n s t o r e f ra i n f r o m b e n e v o l e n t l ie s. B u t i m a g i n e n o w a n o b j e c t i o n f r o m a n o r-mat ive hedon i s t unwi l l ing to r e s t the i s sue on in tu i t ive p r inc ip les . He a rgues tha t ,in tu i t ions as ide , i t i sirr tion l t o p r e f e r t r u t h t o c o m f o r t , u n le s s h a v in g th e t r u t hw o u l d m a x i m i z e o n e ' s p l e a s ur e i n t h e l o n g r u n . T h u s , h e c o n t i n u e s , w h e n o n e a i m s


16/17

2 6 6

t o b e b e n e v o l e n t t o w a r d s a n o t h e r, i t i sirrational to g ive h im the t ru th i f a l ie wi l lc o n t r i b u t e m o r e t o h i s t o t a l s a t i sf a c t io n .

T h e o b j e c t i o n r e s t s o n t h e c o m m o n , b u t m i s t a k e n , a s s u m p t i o n t h a t , a t l e as tw h e n f r ee f r o m m o r a l c o n s t r a i n t s, a f u l l y r a t io n a l p e r s o n w o u l d a l w a y s a i m f o r h ism o s t f a v o r a b l e p l e a su r e / p a i n r a t i o . B u t w h y s o ? A s w e h a v e se e n , p e o p l e d o i n f a c th a v e ( n o n - m o r a l ) c o n c e r n s i n d e p e n d e n t o f a n y a n ti c i p a t e d g o o d e x p e r ie n c e s . S o m e ,p e r h a p s , m a k e m a x i m u m p l e as u r e t h e i r g o a l; a n d o t h e r s d o n o t . W h a t d e t e r m i n e sw h e t h e r o n e i s r a t i o n a l is n o t , b y i ts e lf , t h e c o n t e n t o f o n e ' s a im s , b u t h o w t h e y a r ea r r ived a t , how the y f i t i n to on e ' s l if e p lan , e t c . M ore p laus ib le tha n the hedo n i s t ' sc o n c e p t i o n o f r a t i o n a l i t y, I th i n k , i s t h a t o f J o h n R a w l s , w h o d e f in e s id e a l ra t io n a l i-ty, rough ly, as sa t is fy ing ce r t a in cou n t in g p r inc ip les (m eans -end e ff i c i ency, in -

c lus ion , e t c . ) and the n dec id ing in l igh t o f fu l l i n fo rm at ion abo u t o ne ' s des ir e s ,c i r cums tanc es , e t c . G iven th i s co nce p t ion and the f a l s i ty o fpsychological h e d o n -i sm ( i . e. t ha t a ll s eek on ly to m ax im ize the i r p l easure ) , t hen the r a t iona l l i fe wi l lb e d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t p e o p l e . F o r s o m e , m a y b e , i t w i ll b e p r e d o m i n a n t l y p u r -su i t o f p leasure ; bu t , un less we suppose tha t a ll non-h edon i s t i c des ir e s wo u ld ex -t in g u i s h w h e n e x p o s e d t o m o r e i n f o r m a t i o n , f o r m a n y t h e r a t i o n a l l if e w i ll i n c lu d ep u r s u i t o f o t h e r v a lu e s , su c h a s t r u t h , i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f th e i r p a y - o f f i n p e r s o n a lsa t i s fac t ion .

T h e p r i n ci p le s o f a u t o n o m y w h i c h w e h a ve c o n s id e r e d , t h o u g h s ti ll u n - u n i f ie d

i n a g e n e ra l t h e o r y, p o i n t t o w a r d a c o n c e p t i o n o f m o r a l i t y q u i t e d i f f e r e n t i n s p ir itf r o m f a m i l i a r f o r m s o f u t i l i t a r i a n i s m , h e d o n i s t i c a n d o t h e r w i s e . T h e l a t t e r s t a r tw i t h v i e w s a b o u t w h a t i s i n tr i n si c a ll y v a l u a b l e a s a n e n d , a n d t h e n d e f in e m o r a l i t y,i n o n e w a y o r a n o t h e r , a s w h a t p r o m o t e s t h is e n d . A t h e o r y o f a u t o n o m y, fo l lo w -ing K an t , Rawls , and o the r s , wou ld f i r s t de f'me p r inc ip les fo r mo ra l ins t i tu t ionsand pe r sona l in t e rac t ions , l eav ing each pe r son , wi th in these cons t ra in t s , t he f r ee -d o m t o c h o o s e a n d p u r s u e w h a t e v e r e n d s t h e y w i l l. S u c h a t h e o r y w o u l d n o t o p -pose ben evo len t l ie s on the g rou nd th a t t ru th - t e l l ing wi ll m ax im ize some in tr ins icva lue o the r than p leasure ( e .g . s e l f- awareness ); r a the r, i t wou ld encourag e t ru th -fu lness a s , i n genera l , a way o f r e spec t ing peop le a s f ree to choo se the i r o w n ends .

NOTES

1. I have had the benefit of helpful comm ents and criticisms from a number o f students andcolleagues, m ost notably Ro bert Adam s, Gregory Kavka, W arren Quinn, a U.C.L.A. Lawand Philosophy discussion group, and colloquium participants at the U niversity of Utahand th e University of C alifornia, Santa Barbara.

2. W ha t follows is a brief summary of K ant's views in theGroundwork of the Metaphysicsof Morals interpreted in the light of his later writings. Som e points are controversial bu t,I believe, defensible.

3. Other w ays in wh ich Kant oppo sed moralism I discuss in K an t's Anti-Mo ralistic Strain,Theor/a, Vol. X LIV (1978 ).

4. This conception is a distillation from some ideas in Sartre, bu t I w ou ld no t argue tha t itfully captures the com plexity and variety of Sartre's view. Variations on the theme, withsignificant differences, can be found in R.M . Hare,Freedom and Reason and H .D. Aiken,Reason and Conduct.


17/17

2 6 7

5 . F o r s o m e p u r p o s e s o n e m a y w e l l w a n t t o c l a i m a r i g h t o f a u t o n o m y a g a i n s t u n d u e i n t e r-f e r e n c e s b y t h e s t a te , b u t , w h i l e n o t d e n i e d h e r e , t h i s i s n o t e s p e c i a ll y p e r t i n e n t t o t h e

i ss u e a t h a n d .6 . Tw o c o m m e n t s m a y h e lp t o p r e v e n t m i s u n d e rs t a nd i n g .First , w h i l e t h e l i n e b e t w e e nm a t t e r s w h i c h d e e p l y a f f e c t o n e ' s o w n l i f e a n d o t h e r m a t t e r s is a d m i t t e d l y im p r e c i s e , t h ep r inc ip l e u ses t h i s no t ion on ly t o cha rac t e r i ze rough ly the r ange o f ca ses i n ques t ion ,no t t o d i s t i ngu i sh in gene ra l pe rmis s ib l e f rom im perm is s ib l e i n t e r f e r ence s . Thus , un l ikeM i l l 's li b e r t y p r i n c i p le , t h e p r i n c ip l e d o e s n o t t r y t o m a r k o f f a p r i v a t e s p h e r e i n w h i c ho n e ' s c h o i c es d o n o t s i g n if i c an t ly a f fe c t o t h e r s . W h a t d e e p l y a f fe c t s m y l i f e m a y d e e p l ya f f e c t a n o t h e r ' s a s w e l l. S e c o n d , t h e f a c t t h a t t h e p r i n c i p le i s r e s t r i c te d t o m a t t e r s d e e p l ya f f e c t i n g o n e ' s o w n l i f e d o e s n o t p r e c l u d e t h e r e b e i n go the r pr inc ip l e s opposed to i n t e r-f e r e n c e i n o t h e r m a t t e r s : t h e f i g h t o f a u t o n o m y i s n o t c o n c e i v e d h e r e a s a c o m p r e h e n -s ive f i gh t aga ins t al l und ue in t e r f e r en ce .

7 . Seve ra l have sugges ted to m e th a t o ppo s i t i on to l y ing in t hese ca ses s t em s f rom the j udg -m en t t ha t kno win g the t r u th , o r f ac ing tr ag i c r ea l it i e s , i s i n t r i n s i ca l ly va luab le rega rd l e sso f t h e p a i n i t c a u s e s ; b u t I s u s p e c t t h a t t h e o r i e s ( s u c h a s G . E . M o o r e ' s ) w h i c h m a k e i t ad u t y t o p r o m o t e a n o b j e c ti v e i n t r in s i c v a l u e w i ll r e p e a t e d l y c a l l f o r i n t e r fe r e n c e w i t ha u t o n o m y. R o b e r t A d a m s s u gg e st ed t h a t a n i de a l o f a u t o n o m y m i g h t i n c lu d elivingone ' s ow n l i f e , e .g . expe r i enc ing the t r ag i c rea l i ti e s ac tua l ly su r roun d ing one , qu i t e a sidef r o m o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o m a k edecisions,r a t i o n a l o r o t h e rw i s e ; b u t I t h i n k t h a t a u t o n o m y i sso c lo se ly a s soc i a t ed wi th t he i dea o fself-governing t h a t h i s id e a l i s p r o b a b l y b e t t e rc l as s if ie d u n d e r s o m e o t h e r c o n c e p t i o n .

8 . T h i s m a y s e e m s t r a n g e i f o n e s u p p o s e s ( m i s t a k e n l y ) t h a t w e sh o u l d gi ve p e o p l e w h a t t h e yw a n t - t r u t h o r c o m f o r t , w h i c h e v e r t h e y p r e f e r. B u t t h e p r i n c i p le i n q u e s t i o n w a s i n f a c t

r o o t e d i n a d i f f e r e n t i d e a , n a m e l y, t h a t p e r s o n s a re t o b e re s p e c t e d f o r t h e i r d i s t i n c t lyh u m a n ( e. g. n o n - h e d o n i s t i c ) va l ue s . F r o m t h i s p o i n t o f v i e w, g i v en u n c e r t a i n t y, i t is w o r s et o e r r i n s u p p o s i n g t h a t t h e y p r e f e r c o m f o r t t o t r u t h t h a n t o e r r i n t h e o p p o s i t e d i r e c t io n .

9 . I t m a y b e a rg u e d , r ig h t l y, t h a t s o m e t i m e s b e n e v o l e n t l ie s m a y p r o m o t e t h e i d e a l o f a u t o n -o m o u s l i vi n g i n o t h e r r e s p e ct s . T h i s m i g h t b e s o i f , fo r e x a m p l e , c o p i n g w i t h a p a i n f u lt r u t h , a b o u t w h i c h li t tl e c o u ld b e d o n e , w o u l d s o p r e o c c u p y a p e rs o n t h a t o t h e r i m p o r t a n ta s p e c t s o f l if e w o u l d b e c o m p a r a t i v e l y n e g l e c t e d . S o m e t i m e s , p e r h a p s , t o o m u c h i n f o r m a -t i o n c a n a l so i n t e r f e r e w i t h r a t i o n a l d e c i s io n - m a k i n g .

autonomy and benevolent lies

Documents