Thank you for this thoughtful piece. The case for self-direction as a central human good is compelling—especially in an age when so many of our choices are quietly shaped by large-scale institutional actors. That said, I find myself wanting to pair autonomy with compassion as a co-equal value, especially given the increasingly interdependent nature of our planetary systems.
From a Buddhist lens, self-realization without a corresponding deepening of care for others risks becoming another form of delusion. I’m intrigued by what might emerge if we rethink autonomy not as isolation or self-sovereignty, but as the cultivated ability to act wisely and compassionately within a manipulated decision landscape. Looking forward to future explorations—thank you again for stirring the waters so thoughtfully.
Tocqueville was a very interesting french intellectual: even he was conservative on the religious side, the rest of its ideas was undoubtedly progressives.
Interesting read. There's a certain level of irony, though, making ought claims that impact what one would consider the "right" way for another to live regarding the topic of autonomy.
I would disagree with the premise that it's a central human good though. The very same phenomenology and experiential mechanisms that can produce thr flourishing happy are also those that can lock someone in a tormented, torturous depression.
There's probably an interesting angle to include re: Master and Slave dialectic, too, in that Autonomy is actually the state of self-rule/self-normative/self-governing. But that must occur inside a broader context which means the acceptance of social codes, norms, and mores into one's own framework for how they navigate and interpret the world.
I do think, though, that there is a gap regarding how moral claims are grounded. Even the Enlightenment know that for more claims to be grounded they ultimately had to roll up into some supreme being. It's why speculative Masonry has the concept of the Great Architect of the Universe, for example. On the one hand, it actually obliges a structure above the individual to which he/she must be held to account and on the other it gives some basis from which to establish objective truth and validity in the moral claims asserted. Without it, you fall into relativism and that is devastating to the pursuance of a common good as there is nothing to suggest that some end will be interpreted as both a good and one being pursued, among other aspects.
Such a great food for thought. I am building a lot with AI to enable humans to do more and better, and I am trying to think deeply on how best I should build these system to push for human flourishing, agency and autonomy. Thank you for this essay, would love to discuss this further with you if possible (I applied to the Cosmos Institute)
Agency and autonomy are great principles and the systems we're embedded in should make more room for this. What I would love to hear more about is how to make that work in an increasingly complex and thus specialized world.
There's so much we have to delegate to others because it requires specialized expertise that we haven't developed. I've dipped enough into different areas - medicine, technology, academia - to realize that there's always a lot that I don't know I don't know and I either trust that the guild which specializes in it is doing the right thing or I don't trust them, but then I have to shift effort away from another area of my life and shift my trust over there.
Even if Tocqueville was right that autonomy has to be learned through activity, he was writing in a time when content platform algorithms and blockchains and AI-assisted drug discovery and pharmacy benefit managers didn't exist. We can only learn autonomy in a small number of niches, at best. Is that sufficient?
It is good to start with bedrock principles. When I'm a bit pushy about inclusion into the pantheon it is because most of the writers and thinkers I focus on in 19th America were so much more committed to autonomy and self direction because, enslaved, they were denied the opportunity for either. When I was giving talks on my anthology of 19th c African American women writers I often began by noting that Tocqueville famously never spoke to a black woman in his travels around America. And yet the women whose writings we collected were laser focused on autonomy, self-direction, developing the capacity for judgement through practice, "the vigorous exercise of individual capacities for self-direction." I note too that Harriet Beecher Stowe's sister, Catherine Beecher, was the writer who brought Tocqueville to broader American attention (in her 1842 treatise on Domestic Economy). So I see him very much within a broad network of Americans committed to human autonomy. Yes to the founding authors. Yes too to the many Americans whose reading and writing about these principles are why we are still talking about them today.
Would the choice for integrity over autonomy still be made if integrity were not the moral foundation of a moral system?
Without Integrity as the Foundational Principle:
If integrity were not the ground principle of a moral system, the direction would shift from *truthfulness and inner coherence* to another guiding value — for instance, utility, freedom, harmony, or efficiency.
In such a paradigm:
1. Autonomy might become the highest good:
The human is framed primarily as a self-determining subject.
Integrity may be reduced to internal consistency, not to alignment with something morally greater than the self.
2. Moral evaluation changes from “What is true?” to:
“What feels free?” (autonomy-centered)
“What works?”* (utilitarianism)
“What is expected?”* (normative conformity)
3. Moral friction is masked:
Without a foundational mirror like integrity, the autonomous individual is rarely asked: “Does this resonate with who I am in truth?”
Reflective capacity diminishes without Integrity*
My system, grounded in the principle of Integrity, repeatedly asks: “What would I do if I had nothing to hide?”
Without that foundation, such self-interrogation loses weight — transparency becomes performative rather than revelatory. “Integrity” may be adopted as a strategy, not as a moral imperative.
Conclusion
Without integrity as foundational ground, the prioritization of integrity over autonomy would likely not be made.
It would then cease to be a moral choice — and become instead a preference, a utilitarian convenience, or a situational outcome lacking ethical depth.
Thank you for this thoughtful piece. The case for self-direction as a central human good is compelling—especially in an age when so many of our choices are quietly shaped by large-scale institutional actors. That said, I find myself wanting to pair autonomy with compassion as a co-equal value, especially given the increasingly interdependent nature of our planetary systems.
From a Buddhist lens, self-realization without a corresponding deepening of care for others risks becoming another form of delusion. I’m intrigued by what might emerge if we rethink autonomy not as isolation or self-sovereignty, but as the cultivated ability to act wisely and compassionately within a manipulated decision landscape. Looking forward to future explorations—thank you again for stirring the waters so thoughtfully.
Here's a piece I recently posted that presents the core challenge for our species as a race between two singularities: https://aspenunderground.substack.com/p/a-race-between-two-singularities
Tocqueville was a very interesting french intellectual: even he was conservative on the religious side, the rest of its ideas was undoubtedly progressives.
Interesting read. There's a certain level of irony, though, making ought claims that impact what one would consider the "right" way for another to live regarding the topic of autonomy.
I would disagree with the premise that it's a central human good though. The very same phenomenology and experiential mechanisms that can produce thr flourishing happy are also those that can lock someone in a tormented, torturous depression.
There's probably an interesting angle to include re: Master and Slave dialectic, too, in that Autonomy is actually the state of self-rule/self-normative/self-governing. But that must occur inside a broader context which means the acceptance of social codes, norms, and mores into one's own framework for how they navigate and interpret the world.
I do think, though, that there is a gap regarding how moral claims are grounded. Even the Enlightenment know that for more claims to be grounded they ultimately had to roll up into some supreme being. It's why speculative Masonry has the concept of the Great Architect of the Universe, for example. On the one hand, it actually obliges a structure above the individual to which he/she must be held to account and on the other it gives some basis from which to establish objective truth and validity in the moral claims asserted. Without it, you fall into relativism and that is devastating to the pursuance of a common good as there is nothing to suggest that some end will be interpreted as both a good and one being pursued, among other aspects.
Such a great food for thought. I am building a lot with AI to enable humans to do more and better, and I am trying to think deeply on how best I should build these system to push for human flourishing, agency and autonomy. Thank you for this essay, would love to discuss this further with you if possible (I applied to the Cosmos Institute)
Agency and autonomy are great principles and the systems we're embedded in should make more room for this. What I would love to hear more about is how to make that work in an increasingly complex and thus specialized world.
There's so much we have to delegate to others because it requires specialized expertise that we haven't developed. I've dipped enough into different areas - medicine, technology, academia - to realize that there's always a lot that I don't know I don't know and I either trust that the guild which specializes in it is doing the right thing or I don't trust them, but then I have to shift effort away from another area of my life and shift my trust over there.
Even if Tocqueville was right that autonomy has to be learned through activity, he was writing in a time when content platform algorithms and blockchains and AI-assisted drug discovery and pharmacy benefit managers didn't exist. We can only learn autonomy in a small number of niches, at best. Is that sufficient?
It is good to start with bedrock principles. When I'm a bit pushy about inclusion into the pantheon it is because most of the writers and thinkers I focus on in 19th America were so much more committed to autonomy and self direction because, enslaved, they were denied the opportunity for either. When I was giving talks on my anthology of 19th c African American women writers I often began by noting that Tocqueville famously never spoke to a black woman in his travels around America. And yet the women whose writings we collected were laser focused on autonomy, self-direction, developing the capacity for judgement through practice, "the vigorous exercise of individual capacities for self-direction." I note too that Harriet Beecher Stowe's sister, Catherine Beecher, was the writer who brought Tocqueville to broader American attention (in her 1842 treatise on Domestic Economy). So I see him very much within a broad network of Americans committed to human autonomy. Yes to the founding authors. Yes too to the many Americans whose reading and writing about these principles are why we are still talking about them today.
Would the choice for integrity over autonomy still be made if integrity were not the moral foundation of a moral system?
Without Integrity as the Foundational Principle:
If integrity were not the ground principle of a moral system, the direction would shift from *truthfulness and inner coherence* to another guiding value — for instance, utility, freedom, harmony, or efficiency.
In such a paradigm:
1. Autonomy might become the highest good:
The human is framed primarily as a self-determining subject.
Integrity may be reduced to internal consistency, not to alignment with something morally greater than the self.
2. Moral evaluation changes from “What is true?” to:
“What feels free?” (autonomy-centered)
“What works?”* (utilitarianism)
“What is expected?”* (normative conformity)
3. Moral friction is masked:
Without a foundational mirror like integrity, the autonomous individual is rarely asked: “Does this resonate with who I am in truth?”
Reflective capacity diminishes without Integrity*
My system, grounded in the principle of Integrity, repeatedly asks: “What would I do if I had nothing to hide?”
Without that foundation, such self-interrogation loses weight — transparency becomes performative rather than revelatory. “Integrity” may be adopted as a strategy, not as a moral imperative.
Conclusion
Without integrity as foundational ground, the prioritization of integrity over autonomy would likely not be made.
It would then cease to be a moral choice — and become instead a preference, a utilitarian convenience, or a situational outcome lacking ethical depth.
Subscribed.
(Free for the moment.)
Would appreciate same.
Value your work.
Thank you.