The Importance of Autonomy in Moral Decisions

Nagel and Kant, two significant contributors to moral philosophy, offer vital contributions to the autonomy of moral decisions. Whereas the perspectives of the two philosophers differ slightly, they share a common ground on how individuals should approach autonomy in making moral decisions. Autonomy is crucial in decision-making because it allows individuals to express individuality and the underlying beliefs and values that guide their thought processes. Besides, making autonomous decisions encourages a sense of responsibility since people understand they will be held accountable for their decisions. Therefore, autonomy plays a critical role in moral decisions since it reflects an individual’s ability to make decisions based on their values, beliefs, and individual preferences.

For Kant, morality is a function of pure rationality. Kant emphasizes that regardless of one’s emotional feelings and biological or hormonal differences, a moral decision should be based purely on rationality (Christman, 2003). He affirms that people are created differently and pass through diverse circumstances; hence, a moral decision is non-empirical. Another reason Kant feels that morality is purely a function of rationality is because all human beings are subjected to the same moral standard (Christman, 2003). Kant suggests that people should separate their morality from their intellect so that whatever they do is not influenced by their feelings but by their intellectual ability.

Furthermore, Kant emphasizes the need to respect other people’s moral decisions. He emphasizes that people should be seen as the end, not as a means to the end (Christman, 2003). By respecting people’s moral decisions, then it is like attaching moral worth to their decisions. Also, respecting people amounts to respecting the moral law upon which people act. Since everyone desires to attract respect, they are likely to make the right moral decisions. In other words, autonomy encourages people to make the right decisions because they desire to attract respect.

Thirdly, Kant uses a categorical imperative perspective to support the need to make moral decisions autonomously. Unlike the hypothetical imperative, the categorical imperative is purely based on making decisions independent of all agents or ends. To that end, individual moral decisions should incorporate self-reflection so that one makes a decision they may be comfortable with if it were applied universally (Christman, 2003). The categorical imperative aligns with the principle of ‘doing unto others what you would like to be done unto you.’ Kant’s categorical imperative position ensures that individuals make decisions they would support if the shoe were on their feet.

On the other hand, Nagel emphasizes the influence of subjective experiences on one’s decision-making. Unlike Kant, who argues that there is a ‘moral standard’ that guides decision-making, Nagel avers that moral decisions are subject to individual experiences among different people (Nagel, 1979). Since everyone undergoes different experiences, it is not wise to judge such decisions based on the same moral standard. For instance, a finance officer who embezzles a company’s finances out of their own volition should not be subject to the same moral standard as another who defrauds the company under the coercion of the company’s chief executive officer. The decision to divert funds for both is autonomous, but they do so subject to different circumstances. As a result, Nagel avers that autonomous decisions are influenced by subjective circumstances.

Consistently, Nagel emphasizes the influence of individual agency over moral agency when it comes to making moral decisions. He equates autonomous decision-making to a self-reflection exercise, where individuals make moral decisions based on their unique experiences (Nagel, 1979). Ultimately, individual perspectives and values guide the decision-making process. Nagel’s position pokes holes into Kant’s position on autonomous moral decision-making rather than proving an alternative viewpoint on what needs to happen.

Despite the slight differences between Kant’s and Nagel’s positions on the importance of autonomy in decision-making, the two also share some common grounds. Firstly, the two philosophers recognize the significance of engaging rationality before making moral decisions. Engaging rational capacities enables individuals to realize and follow their moral principles. Nagel and Kant agree that autonomous moral decision-making has an objective bearing. They argue that moral decision-making is not about exercising free will but engaging in moral principles.

In summary, Nagel and Kant argue that autonomy is critical in moral decision-making. On the one hand, Kant avers that autonomy in moral decisions is purely a function of morality. Kant also attaches a moral standard to moral decisions by asserting that such decisions are based on pre-established standards. In a way, Kant suggests that there is a universal law that guides autonomy in moral decision-making. Besides, an autonomous decision, as per Kant, is based on moral agency. On the flip side, Nagel states that autonomy in decision-making is a function of subjective experience. To that end, decisions made by an individual depend on individual values, beliefs, and experiences. Nagel also emphasizes the influence of individual agency in autonomous decision-making over moral agency. Despite the differences, the two philosophers share a common ground that autonomy in moral decision-making requires one to engage in rational thought. Also, Kant and Nagel agree that autonomy in moral decisions requires objectivity.