The heteronomy It is the principle by which the will is excluded as originating from actions, for which the moral agent depends on external factors or on everything that is not legislated by reason. In some way, its definition is linked to that of autonomy, as an ethical approach formulated by Immanuel Kant.
This concept has received deep analysis within post-Kantian philosophy over the years. One position raised is not to define heteronomy by itself, but in opposition to autonomy. It has also been postulated that they are not opposites, not even one is superior to another; instead, they can be considered complementary.
Autonomy has also been considered as a conscientious action, while an action that is motivated by desire is heteronomous. This is another difficulty, since they have not agreed on whether it actually applies to actions, the moral agent, or principles..
Article index
To understand the characteristics of heteronomy it is necessary to know the foundations on which it is based within Kantian ethics.
For Richard McCarty, a university professor who studies Kant, there is no doubt that Immanuel Kant introduces the concept of heteronomy and autonomy through the distinction between categorical imperatives and hypothetical imperatives..
Thus, a hypothetical imperative is a principle of duty, but a moral principle is only expressed through a categorical imperative..
To differentiate one from the other, he maintains that hypothetical imperatives are those by which we are told how to act to achieve an end, but if there is no concern for the end that makes the beginning explicit, there is no reason to do what it commands..
For example, the expression "you will not lie, because if you lie you can be punished in your next reincarnation" is a hypothetical moral imperative, but it ceases to be so if reincarnation is not believed.
On the contrary, a categorical imperative holds that one should not lie, or that lying is wrong..
In this way, Kant argues that ethical principles have been conceived as hypothetical imperatives. Kant indicates that, for him, moral commands are specified categorically by each rational agent; Hence the reason for them to be obeyed.
Hence, the heteronomy of pre-Kant moral imperatives differs from autonomy as a categorical moral imperative, as specified by him..
The autonomy of the moral law is made possible through the categorical imperative, as already indicated above. For this to happen, the autonomy of the will must exist; this is a property by which the will gives the laws to itself through reason.
On the other hand, when the will is determined by the inclination, the will is considered to be heteronomous; that is, the will is intervened from outside.
Elisa Grimi, PhD in Philosophy, analyzes in depth the line that joins heteronomy with intention. It concludes that there is a marked synergy in the thinking subject between heteronomy and autonomy.
To reach this result, it was based on the fact that, when the subject acts, he has an intention; This implies autonomy, since from the outside one cannot know with certainty the intention of the other only by observing their action. It can only be discovered before an answer to the question for the subject to carry out the action.
It is there when heteronomy appears as a condition sine qua non, since if the action follows the intention, it means that it is somehow conditioned by the outside.
It is the case of wanting to take a path that has always been taken, as Grimi says, but that is in spare parts and forces us to take another; it is the heteronomy that appears in action.
He even admits that an error in intention can occur in an action, which demonstrates the association between the two Kantian concepts, as well as the fact that the intention is changed while the action is being performed..
All this shows that intention is what allows the synergistic relationship between heteronomy and autonomy.
The concept of heteronomy has spread in various disciplines. For this reason, examples are described within the framework of some of these:
- Continue in a relationship in which one of the parties no longer wants to continue, due to family pressure.
- Start a certain activity because all friends started it.
- Dressing in certain clothes, even if you are not convinced that it is the right one for you, because it is fashionable.
Examples of a heteronomous linguistic variety are the so-called dialects of German, such as Low German, Austro-Bavarian, Eastern and Northern Hesse, among others. They are all heteronomous in relation to standard German.
Other linguistic examples are tinged with sociopolitical elements. The dialects spoken in the southern Swedish province of Scanian have never been valued as autonomous.
They have been heteronomous from Danish when that province belonged to Denmark. Later, when they became part of Sweden, they were recognized as Swedish dialects; however, linguistically they have not had any variation.
Another example is the Occitan, which was originally autonomous. However, it has also been considered heteronomous; that is, dialect of Low German or, failing that, as a dialect of French.
In this case, it is the social researchers of Latin America who question the methodological and theoretical resources that come mostly from Europe and the United States, because they do not consider them adequate to understand the problems of Latin American nations..
They consider that such resources - and even the themes - have been imposed in terms of heteronomy from the political, economic and cultural aspects.
It is taken as a starting point that heteronomy is being subordinate to a power that prevents the free development of nature.
Thus, heteronomous behaviors are those that begin with the agreement of those who are related, and are called intersubjective relationships. Instead, autonomous behaviors are those that are initiated and maintained by proxy.
In this sense, the law is heteronomous because every legal norm provides and orders what is established in its letter. This is done regardless of the adherence or not of the subject.
Yet No Comments