Autonomy And Heteronomy, An Important Difference
Jean Piaget was a Swiss psychologist and teacher who thoroughly studied the subject of moral judgment. He developed the concepts of autonomy and heteronomy. These refer to how a person learns and uses moral standards. From his perspective, this ethical development is closely linked to the development of intelligence and should lead us from moral dependence on others to independence.
According to Piaget, when a child is born, they do not have enough brain development to understand the terms “good” or “bad”. This is called “anomie”, which means that there is no moral conscience or even anything like it. The child simply acts according to his needs, regardless of whether it affects others, unless they seek a specific reaction.
As the child grows, they become aware of the moral value of their actions. Their parents, their teachers and all authority figures are responsible for setting the child’s moral consciousness. The child then acts according to what others approve or do not approve. This is called heteronomy.
Later, when the process of brain development is complete, a new phase of development appears. The child develops and gradually achieves autonomy, in ethical and moral terms. This means that they learn to act on what their own conscience dictates.
Autonomy and heteronomy, the evolution of rules
According to Piagt’s perspective, the concept of “rules” develops according to moral development. Rules are the commands that in principle seek positive behavior in individuals and / or groups. We believe that the rules are more legitimate (universal) when they exist to avoid conflicts, promote growth, respect and above all justice. It is important to keep this in mind, as there are also destructive rules.
What in principle exists is a “motor rule”. This type of rule follows only a few basic instructions. The adult must intervene directly or physically for this. An example is when a child walks towards a dangerous place and the adult intervenes to prevent it.
What comes next is a “coercive rule”. This happens in the first years of childhood. At this stage, the child follows the norm, just because an adult says they must. They do not even think about questioning it, since everything adults say about morality seems almost sacred. For the child, breaking a rule, no matter how absurd, is a reason for punishment. This is in the heteronomy stage.
Then “rational rule” is displayed. This rule is not enforced by others, but rather by the individual himself according to what others think. They are aware of the value of the norm they perform. If the rule or norm is irrational, they do not follow it, act autonomously and not according to an authority. Obedience is no longer unconditional.
Justice, equity and cooperation – the difference between autonomy and heteronomy
For those who have remained in the heteronomy scene, what the majority does is what is good, according to one authority. The individual believes that if there is a rule, it is because it is good. They do not look at the moral content as much as they look at who makes the rule. This applies not only to children but also to adults. It explains why many people and societies are once able to act against themselves because of certain rules.
In heteronomy, the intention is not analyzed. The only thing that is considered is the result of the behavior, not the motivation behind it. Piaget asked a group of children to judge two actions: in the first, a child spilled ink on a canvas, unintentionally, but the stain was large. In the second, a child intentionally spilled an ink drop. When asked who had the worst behavior, the children answered that it was the child with the biggest stain.
One of the main features of heteronomy is rigidity. No intentions, no connections, no causes are considered. The only thing we see is the extent to which a norm was followed. This is what many adults do when faced with infidelity, inability to meet a goal or any offensive behavior.
In autonomy, however, purpose is a decisive factor. Likewise is justice. If a behavior goes against the rules but promotes justice, it is valid. There is great respect for morality as a means of equality, cooperation and respect for others. Whether it is also a rule is less important. In this sense, we would certainly build better societies if we developed individual autonomy and heteronomy became less common.
