My Main Page with Links to My Other
Book Reviews
Autonomy and
Self-Respect
by Thomas E. Hill
“Two things fill the mind with ever new
and increasing wonder and awe: the
starry heavens above me and the moral
law within me.” --Kant
Thomas E. Hill throws together his essays, and voila, the best deontological work I have seen. Much of Autonomy and Self-Respect can be described as don’t do that to yourself, dammit. There are some things we should not tolerate and many of them are things we are currently tolerating. In a deservedly famous essay on servility and self-respect semi-Kantian Hill argues that we have duties to ourselves, and avoidance of servility is one of those duties. He gives three examples of servility: The Self-Deprecator, the Uncle Tom and the Deferential Wife. All three place little importance on what they value. They care and do little when others take advantage of them. They forget that we have a right and obligation to hold our heads straight, look others in the eyes and speak up for our claims.
The Uncle Tom has misplaced gratitude. The Self-Deprecator mistakenly believes that every right has to be earned. We have some basic rights, notes Hill, that do not come from merit. The Deferential Wife has a duty to treat herself as a moral being and a duty and a right to attach weight to her rights. I heard a merchant marine say once that we take enough shit from nature and uncontrollable factors. We should not take shit form things we can do something about. Diffidence, obsequiousness and self-deprecation are tightropes of trying to avoid criticism while at the same time attracting criticism for being a chump or a sucker, not to mention violating moral principles. All moral beings should give themselves moral laws and act on them.
Both consequentialist and deontological arguments find servility wrong, but deontological arguments find it wrong in a few additional cases where the servility would lead to a minor overall benefit. The consequentialist position is that servility is wrong because it makes people unhappy, dependent and dangerous. Servility encourages further exploitation and the servile lose the emotional rewards of standing up for rights. Instead of choosing quality autonomy and ennobling connectedness, some choose neither. They choose needy, desperate independence or dependence.
Hill exaggerates the likelihood of a utilitarian holding a pro-servility position, but some people benefit from servility. “There are undeniable pleasures in associating with those who are devoted, understanding, and grateful for whatever we see fit to give them—as our fondness for dogs attests.”
That benefit does not morally count or deserves little weight. As Eleni the Greek says, “The sunshine of my life I spent in the shade of others’ authority. Some flowers do not bloom in the shade.”
We should be beings who adopt the moral point of view. We should not only do what is right, but we should prize and respect morality, doing what is right with spirit. “[I]t involves holding the system in esteem, being unwilling to ridicule it, and being reluctant to give up one’s place in it.” The servile person does not respect morality and tolerates evils against her self.
She does not know or care about her moral status. The servile are unwilling to recognize or avoid the shit that is beneath them. They owe it to themselves to change. It is your duty to improve your situation even when others are partly or wholly to blame for screwing up your situation.
He argues that suicide is morally permissible when life becomes subhuman or is marked mostly by immense suffering. Suicides because of apathy, impulsiveness, self-contempt intolerance of minor pain or hedonistic calculations of a little more pain than pleasure are morally wrong. Those who live their lives as more than consumers of pleasure and pain, who make the best of situations deserve admiration. A moral being should value her life for its own sake.
Hill explores various concepts of autonomy. Immanuel Kant saw autonomy as free will and being able to do actions even when one’s desires prefer other actions--choosing for oneself without being wrongfully influenced by power, nature, tradition, authority and popular opinion. Human dignity arises from this autonomy.
Some define autonomy in terms of the ability and willingness to choose rationally without psychological obstacles and biases. Sartre equated autonomy with free will combined with moral relativism. Isolation and self-sufficiency make up another version. Others see autonomy as absence of restraints. Some definitions of autonomy are so broad they equate autonomy with moral character. Autonomous and good are seen as synonymous.
Control, lack of psychological biases, willingness and ability to reason, lack of external coercion and manipulation, and willingness to act without putting comfort first are elements in Hill’s version of autonomy. Manipulation, defined by Hill, is attempts to get people to make decisions in poorly reasoned ways—omitting information and delivering misleading information.
An autonomous being, claims Hill in his own broad turn, does not give unjust weight to his own preferences and attachments, nor does he give zero weight to his preferences and attachments. The moral point of view he takes depends on context. It includes regarding the good of others as an end in itself, not merely as a means to my own happiness, pleasure and desires.
Turning to the environment, Hill argues that wrecking landscapes is wrong, not because trees have rights, but because those who do such things lack certain virtues, especially humility, aesthetic appreciation and acceptance of their places in the universe.
He compares the “lesser evil” with
“moral purity,” two phrases that do not serve a good purpose. Those who are
willing to do the best alternative when all alternatives are harmful commit the
“lesser evil” (for example, a cop shooting a murderer) while those who refuse
to directly do a harm, even when all the alternatives are harmful, are “moral
purists” (for example, a cop unwilling to shoot a murderer even though the
murderer is still shooting at others). The use of the term evil to describe the
best available alternative in a Hobson’s choice is unhelpful as is the use of
the term pure to describe those who refuse to choose the least harmful
alternative, instead letting larger harms occur. When we choose the least
harmful of harmful alternatives, we should avoid being glib and careless. Many
individuals are quick to allege that more harmful alternatives are the least
harmful alternative and that they had no other alternative. Others take refuge
in arbitrary absolute rules, ignoring more important rules and consequences,
allowing real, larger evils to be committed. Apparently, there are many
Kantians out there. The 1994 General Social Survey reports that 80 percent of
Americans think affairs are always wrong.
I hope I never find myself in a situation where these folks have to choose between an affair and murdering someone.
Rules first, rules only and rules absolutely theories have flaws:
· They allow great harm to be done in name of minor rule.
· They prevent great benefit in the name of a minor rule.
· They tend toward absolutism, fanatical closure and clumsy arguments.
· Almost all rules conflict with other rules. Many individuals ignore competing rules. They often pretend that their allies are the only individuals in a situation with rights.
· The mere mention of a rule has a tendency to cause the gullible to acquiesce.
· Tend to evolve into cruel intuitionism or sophisticated defenders of the status quo or both.
Weakness of will is acting contrary to what you think you should do. The author discusses a handful of varieties—half-hearted efforts, broken resolves, thoughtless weakness, fading resolves and uncommitted sampling. He says the weak-willed have will power. The weak-willed, however, poorly exercise it.
Taking on merit snobbery, including moral merit snobbery, he argues that one is a merit snob if one judge’s people solely on merit and allows merit to completely dominate attitudes toward others. Merit snobbery is a mistake because:
· People are owed basic respect and dignified treatment regardless of merit. “[O]ur basic attitudes towards human beings should be as honorable fellow members of a common association.”
· Snobbery may make us lazy, self-satisfied and self-congratulatory for no good reason.
· It is easy to judge ordinary others too hastily and make errors.
· Untangling what is really merit and what is due to other factors is difficult. Understanding our own motives and character is itself incredibly difficult, let alone figuring out people we hardly know.
· We may become preoccupied with judging others and forget to fix ourselves.
· Snobbery and contempt go together. Contempt is difficult to hide. Verbal and nonverbal expressions of contempt wreck relationships in a big way.
· Sarcasm and avoidance can become easy habits as well.
Hill overestimates the amount of merit snobbery in the world, especially moral merit snobbery. Old-fashioned forms of snobbery based on style, tastes, power, position, membership, possessions and personal appearance greatly outnumber instances of merit snobbery, especially moral merit snobbery. Hill ends with a defense of affirmative action.
Among the weakness of this work is that it is too deontological. Hill has “unable to act” in questionable contexts. I do not remember seeing any research mentioned. Many of his claims would have benefited from research support.
Hill does not place enough emphasis on the self-respect that should come from taking valuable risks.
Recommended.
Book review by J.T. Fournier.