Criticism of the Conditions of Personal Autonomy and Social Freedom

according to Raz
Introduction
Often enough there is much confusion between autonomy and freedom. Freedom
concerns merely the ability to act without constraint while autonomy concerns
the independence and authenticity of those desires that move one to act in the
first place. I will first describe the accepted definitions of personal autonomy and
then go on to Razs definition. Following this I will break down certain arguments
that have been made by Raz and explain why I feel his conditions for personal
autonomy are too rigid but why I agree with him that autonomy is essential for
social freedom.
Certain distinctions need to be made when trying to understand the fundamental
concepts of autonomy. Firstly, it is the individual who is responsible for putting
various moral obligations upon themselves. Even though external forces may
influence them, it is still up to the individual to make the choice of which of those
to follow. Kantz suggests that in order for an action to be a moral on an
individual level, it first must be able to be applied to all members of society while
not leading to an undesirable world. Personal autonomy on the other hand is a
trait that individuals can exhibit relative to any aspect of their lives and is not
limited to questions of moral obligation.
Ones level of personal autonomy is determined by far more than just the level of
restriction that is imposed by external governmental or authoritative forces. It
also pertains to an individuals emotional influences, motives, beliefs and past
experiences which have shaped their current person which have thus acted as
separate forces from the individual himself. However, there is great difficulty in
identifying such factors as there is no identifiable set of terms with which we can
determine which factors coerce the individual from which factors can be
attributed to the individual himself.
There are several approaches to the idea of personal autonomy, each with
distinct differences in their requirements for the establishment for such
autonomy. Each approach is similar though, in that they do not simply refer to
the action itself but the motives behind the action. Also, each approach behind
the idea of personal autonomy is based on the fact that for actions to be deemed
autonomous, they must be based on an individuals ability to govern them.
However, these approaches to autonomy suggest that the idea that some
influences that we may consider as being a part of the individual are in fact
independent factors influencing the individual. This influence from external
factors effectively prevents the individual from fully governing his or her actions
and thus is no longer an autonomous agent.
The first approach can be referred to as the coherentist approach. This approach
states that an individual who governs their actions and acts autonomously will be
so, only if their motives are coherent with their motives or point of view of the
action. This implies that whenever an individual is acting in a way that is in line
with his genuine beliefs or desires, the individual is said to be acting
autonomously.
The second approach is the reasons-responsiveness approach. It is entirely
dependent on the ability to respond to the reasons behind an individualistic

motive. This approach states that an agent is not truly in governance of herself if
the motives or mental processes that produce them are responsive to a
sufficiently wide range of reasons for why they are for or against their actions.
This is in effect saying that if an individual does not or cannot understand the
reasons or morality behind their motives or is unable to respond to such
questions for their reasons does not qualify as an autonomous person.
The third approach is the responsiveness-reasoning approach. This approach
pertains to the act of reflecting and evaluating ones motives. This approach
claims that the true essence of personal autonomy is the capacity to evaluate
ones motives on the basis of an individuals genuine beliefs and desires to adjust
these motives in response to this evaluation. The fundamental basis of this
approach is that one needs to be able to distance themselves from ones
emotional stand point because motives that arise from removing these
considerations are entirely internal to the individual herself. It also allows for the
agent to draw inferences from what it is they may want or believe. One may still
be able to exercise personal autonomy even if they hold false beliefs as long as
they exist solely as a result of the individuals experience itself. However if they
agent is in a group of coercion, addiction or under duress, then whatever facts
they consider or conclusions that they draw cannot be attributed to them and
thus their reasoning does not guarantee their autonomy as it was made under
the coercion by external forces. In addition to this, the responsiveness -reasoning
approach requires an autonomous agent to change their mind when they
discover a good reason to do so and then be able to act according with the new
set of motives. So even if an agent is capable of reflecting upon their motives but
is unable to change their motives with new information, it means that they are
unable to possess personal autonomy.
The final approach is the incompatibilist approach. This states that autonomous
events cannot exist where they have been affected by external events from the
individual. This is saying that so long as there have been any factors that have
come from outside of the individual it is deemed that the action is no longer
autonomous.
According to Raz, the ideal of personal autonomy is the vision of people
controlling, to some degree, their own destiny, fashioning it through successive
decisions throughout their lives. Raz goes on to explain in quite some detail, the
criteria that has to be met to justify personal autonomy. He explains that in order
to say that one is autonomous; one has to be free from coercion in making these
life decisions. He goes on to say that it is necessary for there to be a certain
amount of personal awareness that is possessed by the individual in order to
have made a decision free from coercion either by others or by circumstance.
Intelligence as a Condition for Personal Autonomy
It can then be said that there is a correlation to intelligence and personal
awareness then as to be able to make a decision, one has to be aware of the
options. If the individual is not intelligent enough to know the options available,
she is actually being coerced to make a decision. If there are no better options
realized by the individual, choosing the only decent option available is in fact,
not really a decision at all. Raz however, says that the ideal of personal
autonomy is meant to be wider and more compatible with other forms of life,
including those which are very unintellectual (Raz 1986). It is hard to accept this
proposal by Raz that it is possible for a highly unintellectual individual to be

aware of all the available options to her. As Raz has defined autonomy by being
able to be in charge of ones own destiny through successive not-coerced
decisions, making uninformed decisions are thus a form of coercion.
Raz goes on to make comparisons to a man in a pit and a hounded woman, that
in both of these cases there are only limited options to choose from and most of
them are needs more so than choices, both of which if not done will lead to
eventual demise and loss of life. Choosing to live is not an example of personal
autonomy as it is not an option among adequate choices where the only other
option is death. Death cannot be said to be a rational choice when it leads to the
end of awareness.
Raz then brings up a very valid point that leads to involvement of morality as a
condition of personal autonomy. He says;
Autonomy cannot be achieved by a person whose every action and thought
must be bent to the task of survival, a person who will die if ever he puts a foot
wrong. Similarly it cannot be obtained by a person who is constantly fighting for
moral survival. If he is to be moral then he has no choice, just as the person
struggling for physical survival has no choice if he is to stay alive.
This idea is intimately linked with the idea that for people to make a decision free
from coercion they must be provided with good options. A good option is defined
by an option that will not be dictated by another or by circumstance. An option
that is evil is not considered to be an action that is worthwhile. This falls back on
the impossible notion that a highly unintelligent individual could be said to be
autonomous. A certain level of intelligence to know the difference between a
good and evil is needed. For example, if two people have an argument and one
of them feels that they can have their way if she kills the other, is making this
choice free from coercion autonomous? The individual is neither forced by the
circumstance or another person, to kill the other. However if the person was of a
higher intelligence, perhaps more options would have been realised. Choosing
the option to not kill her would also be considered by Razs definition to be not
autonomous as this is an option chosen for moral survival. So this is then saying
that the girl who chooses to kill or not to kill has failed to be autonomous
regardless of the choice that she makes. This is when assuming that she was not
intelligent enough to realise that there were other options available to her.
Raz does also say that there is the question of whether or not it is necessary for
the evil option to be available to us so that people will be able to freely avoid
them. He says that it is better for moral growth as this provides the
circumstances for people to develop moral virtues that allow them to make good
choices. It is essential for the choice to be made available to us without there
being any fear of the consequences purported to us by authoritative figures. It is
by Razs definition that if one is being coerced to have his options reduced, even
if the option is a good or a bad one it still makes the individuals choices not
autonomous.
Another one of Razs conditions for autonomy is that there has to be integrity in
the individuals choices of action. It is unclear though as to how Raz proposes
that this can be so in the absence of a higher level of thinking. Without being
able to realise that one is sometimes deceiving oneself to make a decision, be it
to flee from responsibility or to procrastinate, how can it be said that there is
integrity in an individuals choice? Even individuals who analyse their choices in

great detail tend to not realise that they have actually deceived themselves.
This awareness has to come through the eradication of ignorance which can only
be done through learning. Learning is somewhat tied intrinsically to intelligence.
To be intelligent is to be aware and knowledgeable. This awareness allows an
individual to make well thought out decisions based on having a large number of
good options.
According to Raz, it seems to be that for personal autonomy to truly be possible
and for an individual to make her own destiny while being free from external
influences, she must be extremely intelligent. There is simply no way that a
person of sub-level intelligence could ever hope to even dream of being
autonomous because the self-realization and self-reflection that is needed to be
autonomous requires such a high level of thinking. It might not even be possible
unless an individual is that of genius level intellect.

Authority, Fear Mongering and the Media as Barriers to Personal

Autonomy
Raz also brings up another issue, stating that one may be coerced not to pursue
one option while being left with plenty of others to choose from and that this loss
of options through coercion is deemed to be a greater loss of autonomy than a
similar loss brought about by other means. (Raz 1986) If we take this statement
as it is, it then becomes wholly impossible for anyone to be able to possess
personal autonomy because in one way or another, we are all coerced not to
pursue certain options by the media. The coercion here is a generated mind-set
that has been created by the media and then ingrained within an individual by
being exposed to the media in modern society. The media has filled our minds
with fear of achieving goals that lie outside the norm. In essence personal
autonomy by Razs definition does not exist as there is always a loss of options
due to coercion by ideas that are put in our head by just living as a member of
modern society. Unless one lives a sheltered life away from exposure to the
media, it cannot be said that we have not been coerced subtly. Even then, being
forced into isolation is hardly being autonomous at all.
It then becomes quite clear to see that by Razs definition not a single human
who is being exposed to the media even in the smallest way is able to be said to
be autonomous. Even watching a simple television programme or reading a
single news headline could lead to the spread of influence that will cause an
individual to have changed his motives and thus change his actions. The
individual has unbeknown to himself, become a victim of coercion.
Even by realising that this is what we are being subjected to, does it mean that
we are then free from this trap because we have reflected upon our actions and
made this realisation? I think not. I believe that even though making this
connection has allowed us to know that we are being forced to think a certain
way, the years of exposure to various forms of media has moulded us into beings
that are not truly independent in thought and free from external coercion. We
have become the embodiment of a society caged by ideas and desires that are
not wholly our own. We have been coerced to choose the particular path in life
because of external influences. The closest thing by this definition that we can

hope to have of autonomy, is the desire to eat and drink, defecate, copulate and
sleep.
Another example that comes to mind is the obeying of rules and regulations. If
one were to go against the rules, there would be resultant consequences that are
normally unfavourable to the individual. This in effect has reduced the number of
options that were previously available to us. We have been compelled to obey
the law out of fear of being reprimanded.
Does this mean that then, by obeying the law we are in effect not being
autonomous? Havent we then been coerced into living on the good side of the
law? If so, this means that by existing in any social setting by which there are
laws to protect the good of an individual or the group as a whole, the individual is
no longer autonomous.
Slaves to the Bill
Raz also goes on to say that slaves are said to lack autonomy because even if
there does exist a significant range of options, these would be deemed
insufficient if they were free. This further supports the notion that all individuals
are then, not autonomous. The way that society has evolved and our reliance on
the economic system has led us to all to become slaves to money. It has become
almost impossible to live in todays world without it. We need it to satisfy all of
our basic needs; food and water, shelter and safety. Could it be then that only
tribal people who live unbound by currency are free? Or are they even less
autonomous than modern society? As by lacking the ability to earn money, it has
reduced their options significantly and in effect is coercion to remain practicing
their current way of life.
Raz does also propose though, that perhaps these examples are better
considered manipulation rather than coercion. But he does also say that
manipulation is too, an invasion of autonomy whose severity exceeds the
distortion that it causes. (Raz 1986) He also says that manipulation does also
reduce the number of options available to an individual.
Manipulation though, under his definition still does reduce the options available.
This means that the individual is no longer autonomous if manipulated. How can
we truly say that we are not manipulated by our governments to be slaves to
money? The government makes it quite clear to us that it is part of the
necessary requirements of being alive to earn a living. We must earn our right
to live and everything that we do is centred on this earning. We are spending
hours of our lives to earn cash, to pay for things that we want and need. By
focusing almost all of what we are on earning the right to be able live, we are
no better than Razs proverbial hounded woman. It is in our best interests should
we not want to be consumed by society if we spend our waking hours earning
money. If we do not make money we will not have food to eat or shelter to keep
us warm and thus we will die just as the hounded woman described by Raz will
die if she does not continue to flee from the beast and keep herself alive.
What does that leave us with? It leaves us incapable of autonomy. We are born
as slaves and are coerced to a way of life that we are told is normal from birth.
The true nature of autonomy is in making informed choices based on what we
know. It cannot be a condition that one must be completely free from external
influence. External influence comes as part and parcel of being alive. It is

necessary as a human being to be cared for as an infant. Our species is

incapable of looking after itself in our younger years. And we learn from external
influences. We imitate what we see and we learn by responding to external
forces. We learn what is normal and what is acceptable as a member of society.
Imagine two children that are raised by wolves. These children will have no
knowledge of our human societal norms. Should they be found, they would
behave just as wolves do. They would be savage and vicious and have to hunt to
live. They would learn to become as wolves do.
This is not to say that the wolf children are autonomous. The wolf children are
ignorant to any other way of life other than what they have known. They cannot
be autonomous because they were coerced into the life. They are once again, a
carbon copy of the hounded woman. They lack the choice to be any other way.
They can only be as a wolf is or perish.
Social Freedom
Raz speaks of an autonomy based freedom in which he says that because
autonomy is essentially a moral good and thus beneficial for everyone that we as
a species should propagate this value onto others. He goes on to say that the
autonomous person should have the capacity to control his own life and that a
persons life is autonomous if it is to a considerable extent his own creation. He
says that this autonomous unified existence is the true definition of freedom.
This is an existence free from coercion and manipulation. Raz says that to have
positive freedom, an individual must possess a sense of autonomy, that one
must have the capacity which requires certain mental and physical abilities, an
adequate range of options and the ability to control and create her own life. Raz
states that this is not a forcing of the idea of autonomy onto others but a type of
sharing of an idea, the passing down of a moral virtue that can be followed if
desired. He does say though that it is moral to desire to be autonomous as it is
essential to live a good life. He says that for one to propagate autonomy; one
must make available the conditions to become autonomous. He says;
There is more one can do to help another person have an autonomous life than
stand off and refrain from coercing or manipulating him. There are two further
categories of autonomy-based duties towards another person. One is to help in
creating the inner capacities required for the conduct of an autonomous life.
Some of these concern cognitive capacities, such as the power to absorb,
remember and use information, reasoning abilities, and the like. Others concern
one's emotional and imaginative make-up. Still others concern health, and
physical abilities and skills. Finally, there are character traits essential or helpful
for a life of autonomy. They include stability, loyalty and the ability to form
personal attachments and to maintain intimate relationships. The third type of
autonomy-based duty towards another, concerns the creation of an adequate
range of options for him to choose from. (Raz 1986)
This is however only possible in a world which is absent of coercion and
manipulation. I agree with him here on the beauty of the idea and that true
freedom can only exist in a society in which all individuals are living
autonomously. Such an existence is true freedom.
Conclusion

Theoretically, this is the ideal way of life and it should be that we exist in this
state of autonomous freedom. However this is an impractical view of what is
achievable. The world today does not allow for the autonomous life or true
freedom. Exposure to coercion and manipulation is a given in our modern society.
Raz has taken the incompatibilist approach and it is not a practical one. I much
prefer the reasons-responsiveness approach as it is less rigid and makes
allowance for external events to have an event on the individual albeit still
allowing for autonomy.
To be free, we need to be autonomous, yet we cannot be autonomous because
we are not free. Raz presents to us a catch-22 situation. His conditions for
autonomy are far too harsh. There needs to be a reworking on his conditions of
autonomy. Raz tends to be too rigid in his definitions and has not made
preparations for the influence of the media. This is necessary if we want to
consider autonomy a possibility. If his conditions are loosened to allow for there
to be external factors at least till one becomes an adult, it can be possible for an
individual to live autonomously. The other views of autonomy are more
reasonable when looking at the reality of our modern day lives. There has to be
more exclusion to the rules.
Modern day society has robbed us of the core meaning of autonomy which has
been so elegantly described by Raz. His definitions are extremely well thought
out and have delved deep into the moral conscious of an individual. The great
sadness however is in the fact that by his definitions, the concepts of autonomy
and social freedom are fairy tales. The incompatibilist approach should be
reconsidered by Raz and it should be that allowances are made to allow for the
principal to be a practical one rather than just to be allowed to exist in theory.
This approach does however truly define what a true freedom would be which is
why I find it extremely appealing when conceptualizing the idea of social
freedom.
The world as we know it has changed and is always changing. Has it changed so
much though that we are all slaves? Perhaps even when Raz had completed his
first book, we might have already all been enslaved already. Other philosophers
have perhaps not been so harsh in their definition but perhaps they have not
thought deeply about what it truly means to be free. Freedom is to live
autonomously and only by living autonomously can we be free. Raz has definitely
explained the true nature of freedom and autonomy, though it needs to be
revised to be able to continue to be applied in the modern context of life today.
References
Buss, S. (2002) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] Available from:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/personal-autonomy/
Guyer, P. (2004) Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] Available from:
http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/DB047
Kant, I. and Beck. L, W. (1988) Critique of Practical reason and other writings in
moral philosophy. Michigan: Macmillan.
Raz, J. (1986) The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hobbes, T. (2009) Leviathan. United States of America: Seven Treasure

Publications.