Autonomy and Morality (Ch. 10-12)

In these chapters, Fadiman explains the importance of the Hmong connection to the earth, particularly the mountains.  The Hmong in China and Laos are also nomadic, a theme reflected in Hmong music and artwork.  Fadiman also discusses the Hmong’s history in foreign relations, noting that the Hmong support countries they feel will safeguard their autonomy as a people.  The insular and nomadic nature of their culture, she explains, is at the root of the centrality of autonomy in their culture.  As we have seen in previous chapters, the Hmong are indeed a very independent people, and were oftentimes weary of American medical professionals, regarding their intervention with resentment and dismissal.  While the Hmong conception of autonomy looks different from the American conception of autonomy, it is an important concept in both cultures.    

It is obviously very important for physicians to respect their patient’s cultural/religious beliefs and their autonomy, but I don’t think autonomy is an adequate criterion for evaluating an issue’s morality. For the rest of this blog post, I won’t be discussing patient autonomy, but autonomy in a general sense, and how it is used in moral evaluation.

American culture (and Western culture in general) value autonomy very highly.  I would dare say it is the value we uphold as the highest good.  Autonomy certainly ought to be respected.  Laws centering on respect for human rights are the primary way we seek to ensure that a person’s well-being is not threatened.  From the context of the Christian narrative, however, autonomy operates separately and above the realm of rights.  Christians are called to love God, but are also mutually obligated to one another, making love, not autonomy, the highest good.  As members of the body of Christ, we have claims on each other’s lives.  Being in a community requires that we both lift each other up and hold one another accountable.  Members of a Christian community are called not only to respect each other’s autonomy, but to go beyond this and help one another walk the path that Christ has set for us.  Rights and autonomy, it seems, are only a part of the greater picture of morality as a whole.  I mean this to say that in deciding whether a decision is moral, we must take factors besides autonomy into consideration.  Do we respect one another’s rights simply because to infringe upon them would be an affront to others’ autonomy? Or do we respect the rights of others because these rights serve to respect their humanity and a greater, fuller sense of morality?  The point I’m trying to make here is that “rights” are in service of morality, not the other way around.  Rights are important, but do not equate to morality.  Autonomy and respect for “rights” are not the litmus test for morality from the Christian perspective, precisely because Christians are called to live not only for themselves, but also for each other.