Kant & Autonomy

According to Kant, the prerequisite for autonomy is a principle according to which a human being may justifiably regard themselves as sovereign in their decision-making and the actions that result from it, since they are not determined by external influences. For Kant, this justified and sovereign process of decision-making must arise, on the one hand, from the free will and, on the other, from moral and ethical values, as well as from the fulfillment of duty. In this respect, the Categorical Imperative should be understood as the individual's instrument of practical reason, enabling human beings to legislate moral law for themselves. Duty occupies a central role in Kant's philosophy, since it constitutes a further prerequisite for autonomy; without fulfilling one's duty, a person would fail to remain true to themselves. Viewed from a meta-level, adherence to principles together with methodical, deductive reasoning constitutes the true precondition for autonomy, since decision-making is bound to something immutable—a kind of "eternal law"—which nevertheless produces concrete and variable outcomes that the individual is obliged to follow. Personal inclinations and preferences therefore play no role. Consequently, discipline is equally essential for Kant, as it enables individuals to resist repeatedly surrendering to pleasure through the maximization of utility or devoting themselves to increasing their own advantages at the expense of others. Accordingly, Kant's conception of autonomy may be understood as consisting of a four-step process. First, the individual must possess a free will and formulate an objective—for example, the desire to be free. Second, this objective is subjected to the test of the Categorical Imperative: "Act so that the maxim of your will could always hold at the same time as a principle of universal legislation" (Critique of Practical Reason, §7). Kohlberg's Heinz Dilemma may serve as an example of this procedure. By applying the Categorical Imperative, Heinz could formulate the maxim of his will—namely, that the life of his wife possesses greater value than the financial loss suffered by the manufacturer of the medicine—as a universal law stating that, in general, human life is more valuable than money.