what does personal autonomy mean?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I just finished “Liberalism and its discontents” by
Francis Fukuyama… I shall begin to reread it after I finish
this thread…which is highly unusual for me, to reread something
so soon after my first reading… but I think it is an important book…

so, let us approach the question at hand, personal autonomy…
what is personal autonomy? according to my handy dandy dictionary,

"in its simplest sense, autonomy is about a person’s ability to act on
his or her own values and interest. Taken from the ancient Greek, the
word, means ‘self-legislation’ or ‘self-governance’.‘’

Now in the current climate, the conservatives claim that they are
more in favor of personal autonomy than liberals… that is their
argument for both a “gun for every American” policy and for their
rejection of masks…

and the liberals are considered to be more about personal autonomy
in regard to social/culture issues…

now where much of the argument turns is on this question of, as
an example, homosexuality… for a conservative, homosexuals
violate the social order by their being homosexual… that ‘‘somehow’’
homosexuals are deviants that bring about the loosing of morals in
a society… it is never actually spelled out how this is supposed to
happen, but that is the theory…

whereas for liberals, the idea of personal autonomy means that
we create space, allow people to engage in their own idea of
personal autonomy by being homosexual…or trans or interracial
marriages…

if the conservative were actually about “personal autonomy” they
wouldn’t have problem with trans people or homosexuals…
but in some fashion, homosexuals or trans people are supposed
to be a danger to society at large… and thus the society must
protect itself by banning homosexuals/trans people… but
what about this idea of personal autonomy?

whereas liberals do allow those who are homosexual or trans to
engage in their own personal autonomy…now the radical right wing
holds that liberals are forcing people to engage in the alleged
‘‘homosexual agenda’’ (whatever that means… conservatives never
actually lay out their exact issues with cultural issues, it is assumed,
not discussed) whereas the left creates the space for those who wish
to engage in their own personal autonomy/space…
we don’t tell you must hold certain views, we just give you the
platform to hold your own personal space in whatever fashion you desire,
it is not the government’s place to tell you if you can (or not) hold
certain viewpoints, the government place is to allow you space to
hold to your own personal autonomy issues…

thus we don’t deny your own autonomy issues of telling you
you can’t be gay or trans or if you can choose an abortion…
you are free to do so in a liberal idea of personal autonomy…

but look at what the conservatives are attempting to ban,
abortion, gay rights, trans rights… these personal autonomy issues
of choice, are denied by the radical right wing…

in another words, the right denies/bans personal autonomy issues…
they, the right is quite happy to deny your own personal autonomy
if it clashes with a conservative viewpoint…as their
own personal autonomy is more important than your personal
autonomy…it is never clear as to why this is true, but it is taken
as fact that the conservative values are greater than your own personal
values…

Kropotkin

2

Would you let sick people be sick or would you try to help them? You might say “But they aren’t sick.” Sure, but there are people who think they are. So what are we to do? Engage in a dialogue or fight? The conservatives are people who think that these people are 1) sick, 2) made sick by the elites, 3) used by the elites for their nefarious ends, and 3) in need of help. Right or wrong, these are their positions. But the way you interact with, and talk about, them doesn’t indicate to me that you’re interested in a dialogue.

I wouldn’t say they have problem with these people. They have problem with the elites using these people for their own ends.

The aggressive promotion of homosexuality is the danger.

Every kind of community wants to ban what it deems too dangerous. It has nothing at all to do with personal autonomy issues. You aren’t going to let criminals run free, right? You won’t even let unvaccinated people run free. The question is merely 1) Are these things/people really that dangerous?, and 2) Is banning these things/people the best response?

I have to ask, who are these people on the right who want to ban homosexuality? I’m sure there are some but I’m also sure not all are.

Yet, you don’t want to allow a community of people to ban abortion clinics within their area if they decide that’s what should be done. Roe v Wade was preventing precisely that.

3

Would you let sick people be sick or would you try to help them? You might say “But they aren’t sick.” Sure, but there are people who think they are. So what are we to do? Engage in a dialogue or fight? The conservatives are people who think that these people are 1) sick, 2) made sick by the elites, 3) used by the elites for their nefarious ends, and 3) in need of help. Right or wrong, these are their positions. But the way you interact with, and talk about, them doesn’t indicate to me that you’re interested in a dialogue.

K: and therein lies the problem… you haven’t proven your idea/contention
that somehow, there are elites, that somehow, never defined they are made
sick by the elites, that somehow, never defined how, they are used by the elites
and there are in need of help? again, never defined… instead of wild
accusations, bring it down to earth and give us specific example that
what you say is true… for examples, elites use people for their “nefarious” ends
try to give us specific examples instead of wild generalizations…

I am not even going to deal with rest until we have some understand of
this point…

Kropotkin

4

Sure. But you haven’t proven your ideas/contentions either. You never do but you always demand from others that they do.

You want me to do everything all at once? Why don’t you ask? “Hey Magnus, can you explain the process by which the elites turn people into homosexuals?” Instead, you’re doing your regular thing – accusing others of being wrong. “Oh, you have yet to convince me, therefore, you got to be wrong!”

I was merely stating what conservatives believe. Whether right or wrong, they believe these things. It’s important to correctly understand their position before you proceed to criticize it. I was, in essence, critiquing your understanding of their position. But you obviously missed that. And what’s the point of calling their beliefs “wild accusations”? Why are you so confrontational? What’s the point? Can’t you sit down and discuss things in a respectful manner? Do you have to turn everything into polemics?