IV.6               From Moral Insight to Autonomy
Personal moral insight can become moral authority, which is reliance on one's own judgments that grants the individual the freedom to choose values, rules of conduct, and life plans. When, in addition, a person is free from coercion and constraint, both in making decisions and carrying them out, then a person is autonomous or self-governing.
                                                                         This writer
                                                                               
From the Stoics’ point of view, there is only one security within the range of human control, and this is a reflectively enlightened character.
As we grow in character, we grow in mind. The hope of most moral philosophers has been that as we grow in mind, we will also grow in character. This hope for the most part has, unfortunately, not been justified.
[Stoic moral philosophy] stresses that it is possible for human beings themselves to do what contributes to their well-being and thereby entitles them to approve of their own conduct.
                                                                        Ben Kimpel (1905-1990?)
 
Introduction
A. How Does an Individual Acquire Moral Insight?
B. How Does Moral Insight Become Moral Autonomy?
C. Moral Activity and the Morally Mature Person
D. The Vice of Moral Rationalizing
E. How to Arrive at a Perfect Conscience
F. Acknowledgement
 
Introduction
As we go through life, we have to make decisions that affect the well-being of others and ourselves. These are moral decisions that cannot be properly evaluated unless one has moral insight, that is, a standard, principles, or criteria that guide in determining what is worthy of acceptance. The moral standard itself must be evaluated by the criteria of universality, utility, truth, and justice.
     However, what one accepts as true knowledge, for example, religious or scientific, largely determines and sets limits what a person accepts as moral insight. Common sense tells us that the criteria for a standard is more likely met when knowledge is based on observation and reason as applied in the sciences where there is almost unanimity concerning the methods of truth finding and verification. By contrast, there is no such agreement among the thousands of religions whose distinguishing characteristic is their reliance on ancient revelations and insights from meditations that are not only unverifiable but often contradict each other. To avoid this moral chaos, the conclusion of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) is well taken:   
I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect had intended for us to forgo their use.
 
     Moreover, a dependable guide for life must state a down-to-earth morality or rules of conduct. Hence, we must move from theoretical constructs and intellectual abstractions by theologians and philosophers to the factually concrete that has to be evaluated, as already noted above, by the criteria of universality, utility, truth, and justice. And lastly (see these chapters), a Functional Democracy, besides a Just Social Contract, requires Educated Citizens, that is, self-directed, rather than heteronomous, other directed, individuals. To instruct how to acquire moral insight and moral authority or autonomy is the main objective of this chapter. Finally, we have to be aware of the social forces that oppose moral autonomy and autonomy in general.
 
A.              How Does an Individual Acquire Moral Insight?
A moral insight is a discovery of a way to act which will be beneficial to human life. . . . Becoming aware of a way to achieve a desired good is an insight into the condition which must be fulfilled for an attainment of the desired good.
                                                                                Ben Kimpel (1905-1990?)
 
The large multitude of individuals are so engaged in the struggle for existence that they have hardly the time or inclination to become independent thinkers--freethinkers--in matters of moral conduct. Most go with the flow, that is, traditional mores or folkways, which are fixed customs, are thought to be morally significant. Moreover, most mistakenly assume that their moral indoctrination, designed to maintain existing conditions often for the benefit of the few, was moral education.
     However, this going with the flow "normal" behavior may be, and often is, less than moral because it prevents progress and supports the often unjust status quo. And to the extent that it is not moral, it is abnormal because a moral definition of normal is behavior that benefits the individual and the community. Moreover, these individuals act more like programmed robots, automatons, rather than persons who use their intellectual and moral faculties. On account of this, they are easily manipulated by rulers, politicians, clerics, and others who are interested in exploiting and controlling them.
     The "fast track" to moral insight is the acquisition of work by others that one considers trustworthy. Below are moral and intellectual standards that have found worldwide acceptance because they substantially meet:
                  The criteria of universality, utility, truth, and justice.
Reading the "Universal Moral Norms" and the "Universal Intellectual Standards" for comprehension will lead to their internalization, that is, they become virtuous habits over time that are eventually perceived as intuitions. Moreover, the tenets of the intellectual standards will assist in sound decision making in all areas of life not just moral or ethical.

Universal Moral Norms

Of the United Nations, for example, cover human relations in nations and between nations. They supersede the now out-of date, often narrow and self-serving standards of nations and their traditions. However, these universal norms are only partially implemented because they are fought tooth and nail by reactionary conservative and religious ideologues who want to preserve their unearned advantages and status in society. The family of about 192 nations (2008) organized under "The Charter of the UN" has in principle agreed to these norms. See all the chapters of the subsection “Global Contracts and Universal Norms” in The Social World. For the foundational ethics and justifications of these norms see The Common Moral Decencies and Ethical Excellences and Ultimate Values Justified as Moral Rights. 

Universal Intellectual Standards

The United Nation's Human Rights Agreements reflect for the most part a common intellectual standard. It is based on the best accredited providers of knowledge, the sciences, and the reasoned inferences that critical thinking draws from this data while avoiding the pitfalls of fallacious thinking. Together with a standard for intellectual honesty this is outlined in the section The Intellectual Realm as part of this writing. For details go to the chapters of the subsections Knowing, Thinking, Reasoning, and Sciencing.

B.             How Does Moral Insight Become Moral Autonomy?
One criterion of moral insight to become moral autonomy or authority is the ability to clearly distinguish between right and wrong conduct, that of one's own and that of others. It is necessary to understand the origins, development, connections, and inner nature of morality. Here, the preceding two chapters The Natural Origins of Morality and The Common Moral Decencies and Ethical Excellences should be most informative.
     Acceptance of moral responsibility by the individual, however, is the most important criterion. As the philosopher Kimpel points out:
  • An individual's acceptance of a [moral] responsibility as his own obligation makes the difference between a moral authority and an authoritarian demand.
  • Acting may be coerced by socially-imposed demands; but such demands are no more a matter of moral authority than the demands of a master over a slave.
  • [It follows that] a moral authority is an accepted [moral] responsibility.
  • [And a] Moral responsibility, therefore, may be defined as doing all that one can with whatever resources he has for making a desirable difference in the quality of human life, either his own, or another's.
  • [It entails the critique of] Principles of life [that] are deficient when they do not take into account all the conditions with which one must reckon to attain a type of life which is desirable, in the sense of worthy to be desired.
  • [It entails the responsibility to promote] Moral progress either in individual or collective life [which] depends upon influencing behavior by principles which either are more adequate than those which have already directed practice, or else are more adequately understood than they were previously.
 So, having moral insight or competence together with the acceptance of moral responsibility makes it possible for individuals to contribute to their own well-being and that of others. Therefore, it makes people autonomous, that is, they have autonomy. It authorizes or entitles them to approve of their own conduct and critique that of others.
     The term "autonomy" is a compound word that comes from the Greek "auto" which when combined with other words means "self." The "nomy" part comes from the Greek for "nomos" meaning law. Hence, the literal meaning is self-law or giving laws to oneself. It is synonymous with the more often used term "self-reliance" meaning reliance on one's own judgments, abilities, powers, resources, etc.
      With respect to moral discourse, moral autonomy has a variety of related meanings:
  • One who gives oneself his/her own law, it is the right to self-government in general, that is, one is independent, not controlled by others or by outside forces.
  • In the moral realm, autonomy refers to a person's capacity for self-determination in the context of moral choices. The individual is self-directed as well as independent in mind or judgment.
  • In moral and political philosophy, autonomy is often used as the basis for determining moral responsibility for one's actions. The idea is that the individual had the capacity of a rational individual to make an informed, un-coerced decision.
     The words "we have moral authority" are often used by authoritarian institutions who claim the power or right to give commands, enforce obedience, take action, or make final decisions. By contrast, an individual's moral authority, as described above, is a morally justified authority. It entails the attributes such as being laws or rules one gives to oneself, which is the definition of being autonomous provided the individual is free from coercion and constraint both in making decisions and carrying them out.
 
 C.               The Morally Mature Person and Moral Activity
A man is morally free when, in full possession of his living humanity, he judges the world, and judges other men, with uncompromising sincerity.
                                                     George Santayana (1863-1952)
 
The morally mature person has six primary traits that are all derived from universal moral and democratic principles suggests the ASCD* Panel on Moral Education. They suggest that this type of person habitually:
1. Respects human dignity, which includes
  • showing regard for the worth and right of all persons,
  • avoiding deception and dishonesty,
  • promoting human equality
  • respecting freedom of conscience
  • working with people of different views, and
  • refraining from prejudiced actions.
2. Cares about the welfare of others, which includes
  • recognizing interdependence among people,
  • caring for one's country,
  • seeking social justice,
  • taking pleasure in helping others, and
  • working to help others reach moral maturity.
3. Integrates individual interests and social responsibilities, which includes
  • becoming involved in community life,
  • doing a fair share of community work,
  • displaying self-regarding and other-regarding moral virtues--self-control, diligence, fairness, kindness, honesty, civility--in every day life,
  • fulfilling commitments, and
  • developing self-esteem through relationship with others.
4. Demonstrates integrity, which includes
  • practicing diligence,
  • taking stands for moral principles,
  • displaying moral courage,
  • knowing when to compromise and when to confront, and
  • accepting responsibility for one's choices.
5. Reflects on moral choices, which includes
  • recognizing the moral issues involved in a situation,
  • applying moral principles (such as the golden rule) when making moral judgments,
  • thinking about the consequences of decisions, and
  • seeking to be informed about important moral issues in society and the world,
  • [realizing that what is morally obligatory may be illegal, and what is immoral may be legal, for there is no necessary connection between morality and the law.]
6. Seeks peaceful resolution of conflict, which includes
  • striving for the fair resolution of personal and social conflicts,
  • avoiding physical and verbal aggression
  • listening carefully to others,
  • encouraging others to communicate, and
  • working for peace.
*(U.S) Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
In sum, the morally mature person understands moral principles and accepts responsibility for applying them. It follows:
The moral activity is practical. It is concerned with action and with those states of the mind which lead to action. A state of mind is judged and tested morally according to the action which is likely to result from it. It is, in fact, judged as the part of the process of action and seen as one with that process. The moral activity consists in doing what is right for its own sake; and thought, so far as it is subject to the moral activity, is part of doing.
     There is a desire . . . to do what is right, and all processes of the mind may be controlled by that desire. But the final satisfaction of that desire is in action, not in thought; and, however right thought may be, it cannot be satisfied morally except in action.
                                                         A. Clutton-Brock (1868-1924)
 
If right thinking is then followed by wrong action as judged by their effects upon others, the individual's mind experiences cognitive dissonance, that is, feelings of remorse for having failed and not lived up to one's own standard or expectations. It was a moral activity began rightly but finished wrongly even if only by an act of omission. This wrong act was then as Clutton-Brock notes "not part of the process but a contradiction of it."
 
D.                           The Vice of Moral Rationalizing
Responsibility for behavior is in part proportional to moral capacity, the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. This difficult task is exacerbated by the lack of genuine moral education, that is, to make matters worse, often immoral. Hence, this negative enculturation diminishes the responsibility for behavior judged to be amoral or immoral. The real responsibility is then with the educators.                                                                 
 
To rationalize is to assign one's morals, acts, decisions, beliefs, opinions, etc., to causes that superficially seem reasonable and valid but that actually are unrelated to the true, possibly unconscious and often less creditable or agreeable causes. The individual is usually not aware that these are not the real motives. In the case of some moral rationalizing, Walter A. Kaufmann (1921-80) observes:
Reason is considered authoritative, but the cards are stacked to make sure that reason will deliver the desired verdict. The moral rationalist reveres justice as transcending preferences--but makes sure that her verdict accord with his preferences. Thus he sees to it that his own moral ideas come back to him endowed with authority.
 
For the individual to see through the multitude of self-serving moral schemes, a society serious about a "Functional Democracy," must make provisions in "The Just Social Contract" for the educational and material needs of all its citizens to achieve moral autonomy. For the attributes of personal autonomy see The Educated Citizen. However, the road to the citizen's means for autonomy is blocked by hordes of cooperating, powerful deceivers, ideologues, sociopaths, and predators who are all determined to protect their privileges. Crucially relevant for a full grasp of this crisis are the chapters of The Abysmal Antisocial.
 
E.                      How to Arrive at a Perfect Conscience

Hegel, in his Phenomenology of Spirit (1807) and The Philosophy of Right (1821), links personality to a self-conscious will that yearns to become conscious of itself, and thus to realize itself effectively through interaction with the external world. But the highest objective for the growth of personality is the development of a higher conscience. And since this development is a most noble goal, I shall explain it below. The difference between the two mentioned works is that to bring about this development labor alone suffices in the earlier one (1807) while private property is posed as a necessity in the later one (1821). Hegel writes somewhat metaphorically (actually allusively):

Conscience, then, in the majesty of its elevation above specific law and every content of duty, puts whatever content it pleases into its knowing and willing. It is the moral genius which knows the inner voice of what it immediately knows to be a divine voice; and since, in knowing this, it has an equally immediate knowledge of existence, it is the divine creative power which in its Notion possesses the spontaneity of life. Equally, it is in its own self divine worship, for its action is the contemplation of its own divinity (Phenomenology of Spirit).

It appears that for Hegel there is a higher concept that is elevated above positive law and imperatives of duty, and this should guide our moral decisions. He names this concept Gewissen and it is usually translated as conscience. However, it was the moral philosopher and natural theologian Joseph Butler (1692-1752) who termed the faculty of the mind which tells us right from wrong "conscience."

     The term “conscience” is commonly used to describe a feeling a person experiences when he or she is tempted or actually breaks the established social customs or mores. That is, one has a bad conscience about it --- one is concerned with the disapproval of one’s fellows and or one’s own good conscience. To satisfy this type of conscience, and to live in harmony with oneself, one simply has to dutifully perform within society’s moral code, that is, thinking or moral reasoning is not required, and an unthinking conformity will do just fine. To Hegel this is a lower and unacceptable form of conscience, and he names it the moral consciousness.

     To arrive at a perfect conscience, Hegel claims, we would need the knowledge of a pure morality and to follow it. However, the problem is that only a divine legislator could give us such perfect moral insight. But in doing so, genuine moral goodness would not be possible, because it must be based on a moral struggle and decision-making activity. In the absence of these requirements for moral goodness, we would just be robots carrying out orders.

     However, as consciousness develops to a higher level of awareness, it becomes "aware [of] its deep insincerity [hiding behind the excuse of simply following society’s moral code] in all these positions, [it] flees to its own inwardness and takes up the position of pure conscience." That is, it is indifferent to revealed, transcendent, and society’s moral codes since such origins do not make sense in connection with moral discourse. For Hegel, moral decisions are a matter of life or death, the full or the wasted life; hence, nothing but certainty of conscience will do. But how is this humanly possible, and in particular since he ruled out divine or extralogical sources?

     In Hegel’s mother tongue, the word for conscience is Gewissen. It is derived from the adjective gewiss and is equivalent in meaning to certain, sure, positive. And the German speaker almost always uses the word Gewissen in the sense that an English speaker uses the word "conscience." For Hegel, this term signifies unthinking conformity to sacred and secular customs and mores. But his idea of a higher conscience transforms a given moral problem into something subject to consciousness which in turn, governed by reason, analyzes all details and synthesizes all possibilities with regard to their consequences and regardless of existing laws, divine or secular. Of moral decisions reached in this manner, the individual can be absolutely certain, for they are the most perfect judgments he or she is able to make. They are the expressions of a developed personality, a "Beautiful Soul" as Hegel calls it, and as such must be respected by society.

 
F.                                    Acknowledgement
As can be seen, this chapter owes much to the philosopher Ben F. Kimpel (1905-1990?). His early moral writings reflect what is a rarity, namely, a rational theology (1952, 1953, 1954). It stated criteria for a "completely dependable moral guide for life" that would indicate that "the divine reality" was found. Afterwards, Kimpel's thought matured in Principles of Moral Philosophy (1960), which was an empirical, down-to-earth work calling on evidence and logic. He apparently concluded his writings with a work on Stoicism, the culmination of Greco/Roman moral-philosophical, life-coping thought--Stoic Moral Philosophies: Their Counsel for Today (1985).