Download 1150207 - Extras Springer

Formation and Transcendence: Institutional Change from Moral Autonomy to
Heteronomy
Yi-fang Li
Business school, Hunan University of Technology, ZhuZhou Hunan, China
([email protected])
Abstract - The transition of morality from autonomy to
heteronomy is determined by examining the historical
characteristics of the period of social transformation in
China. Moral education, alone, has not been sufficient
enough to solve the problem of a changing morality. The
transformation of moral autonomy to moral heteronomy has
become an inevitable method to solve this problem. Change
in external conditions surrounding the moral life of a society,
brought about by the transition of the old to the new, has led
to a growing disparity of social lifestyles, and created a
"moral vacuum". Society is in bad need of constructing an
institutional environment of morality in order to lead by
example. If we want to propel the advancement of morality
through institutional change, then morality must advance
through institutional change, and keep pace and coincide
with institutional evolution, conforming to the character of
the institution as it undergoes change. Examining the
transition from moral autonomy to moral heteronomy, we
will proceed along three pathways: (1) by reinforcing
building administrative ethic rules and administrative
legislation; (2) by strengthening established professional
ethics and industry legislation; and (3) by enhancing social
morality education and public legislation.
Keywords - Morality;
Institutional Change
Autonomy;
Heteronomy;
Since the advent of reform and opening up in China,
productivity of our country has greatly improved.
However, as a consequence, a negative phenomenon has
arisen in the area of morality which discourages healthy
economic growth and sustainability, and goes against the
established social order. Moral autonomy, once venerated
as an effective means of social control, has not yet been
proven to be effective in changing a social moral order.
Social moral restraint is needed for the purpose of
allowing a purely autonomous society to develop into a
heteronymous one. Effort exerted in both areas will be
required in order to provide the support needed to
promote moral development in an economic society.
I. MORALITY AND ITS RESTRAINT MECHANISM
A. Connotation of Morality
Morality is a unique social phenomenon found only
in human society. It is fixed by the demands of economic
relations and is maintained by people’s inner beliefs,
public opinion, and traditional customs. Morality reflects
the ideology of good and evil, beauty and ugliness,
favoritism and impartiality, honesty and hypocrisy,
justice and injustice, etc. Standards of ethical behavior
correspond intimately to these ideas. Morality is a mirror
reflecting society’s moral consciousness, moral criterion,
and moral activity.
B. Moral-Restricting Mechanism: Moral Autonomy and
Moral Heteronomy
“The basis of morality is the autonomy of human
spirit.” Moral autonomy refers to a moral agent’s
internalized
sense
of
moral
awareness
and
self-consciousness when consciously performing moral
obligations and responsibilities, to the exclusion of any
external factors such as people or society. It is the moral
agent’s inner recognition of moral principles. It is a kind
of self-restraint, self-supervision, self-control, and
self-management. In short, moral subjects perform moral
behavior by their own moral standard, independent of
external forces. The basic function of self-discipline is
internal sanction. Autonomy is not only the observation
of regulation by one’s own free will, but also the activity.
According to the cognition of environment, social norms,
and morals, along with self-knowledge, individual
subjects appear to identify matters which should not be
acted upon while, at the same time, they appear to
identify what matters should be acted upon persistently,
as well as what matters should stop, and where they
should stop.
Moral heteronomy precedes autonomy. It is aware of
the other. It is the disciplined form of morality that
operates before moral values and ethical standards
internalize as people's inner belief, and acts as their
self-disciplined consciousness. External factors are the
binding force and orientation of moral heteronomy rather
than the moral subject itself. It is not the recognition of
inner moral principles, but the subject of the moral agent
itself who is subject to the ethics by external force. It
fundamentally functions in response to external sanction.
In order to distinguish moral autonomy from moral
heteronomy, scholars, led by L. Kohlberg, proposed nine
standards: (1) freedom; (2) mutual respect; (3)
reversibility; (4); constructive ability; (5) internality; (6)
hierarchy; (7) prescription; (8) universality; and (9)
selection. It is believed that people in society distinguish,
judge, and comment on autonomy and heteronomy in
light of these nine standards [1].
Moral autonomy is predicated on moral heteronomy,
and contains it. The moral norm is the social order as
defined by the behavior of the people. Approved and
accepted by the people at-large, the moral standard
reflects moral reason in conjunction with the overall
interests of society, and acts as a kind of parameter, guide,
and inspiration to individual will. Moral autonomy
gradually absorbs and accepts morality as conveyed by
moral heteronomy: Its influence --via external
heteronomy, as determined by the society and the other –
is transformed into the moral agent’s inner moral emotion.
In the process of consciously accepting heteronomy
conduct is the certain behavior of autonomy.
Ⅱ. DISORDERED MORAL AND REASON OF IT
Moral norms play an effective role in traditional
society. However, in the course of societal transformation,
social morality falls out of sync, and a moral crisis
emerges. Insufficient efforts to raise ideological and
ethical standards can lead to moral decline. As China
transitions from a planned economy to a market economy,
calculated rationality increasingly influences people's
thoughts and behaviors. Autonomy is not adequate
enough to rely on the judgment of people. As the breadth
and depth of interaction rapidly expands, one-off
situations among people also increase, and the
community suffers. People are no longer concerned about
retribution when the interests of others are damaged.
Although they recognize that it is immoral to harm the
interests of others, rational calculation often leads
individuals to serve their own self-interest. A relatively
ordered, moral life hinders not only upon successfully
developing an economically healthy and sustainable life,
but also upon building a just social order.
Social transformation, by its very nature, lowers
morality. The market economy is defined by an economic
system that only succeeds when it realizes the most
profitable allocation of various kinds of social resources
[2]
. It assumes that each subject engaging in economic
activity has cultivated a corresponding personal morality
in conjunction with the economic activity. It is expected
that each subject assume certain moral responsibilities
and obligations in order to participate in the market
economy. It is reasoned that people must follow a
prescribed moral norm: Integrity is the true faith of
economic activity. But in a period of social
transformation, the old system still exerts power and it is
difficult to eliminate its influence in such a short time.
People begin to rely on rational calculation for their
behavior. The new system begins to arouse the instinct of
“material desire” in people. It overwhelms the older
inhibitions of the existing system by encouraging the
pursuit of success at any cost to the other. It breeds
selfishness as it violates moral conscience in favor of
personal self-interest, ruthlessly trampling on the interests
shared by society as a whole. The market economy,
although affirming the reasonable pursuit of individual
interest, finally, creates extreme individualism, and
immoral egoism. Therefore, society is in urgent need of
constructing a moral institutional environment so that all
people can share in the rewards of the market economy.
III. THE INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF MORALS:
THE PREMISE OF THE TRANSITION FROM
MORAL AUTONOMY TO HETERONOMY
A. Connotation of Institutionalization of Morals
In a rational world, institutions would have no
reason to exist. However, society can only grasp partial
information when facing the complexity of reality, and,
even then, is limited in its ability to process it. Therefore,
it is unrealistic to rely merely on moral autonomy. When
uncertainty accumulates, bounded rationality results [3],
and institutions are needed to guide and regulate moral
behavior. Moral institutionalization refers to the
regularization of moral requirements, moral regulations,
as well as ethical requirements which exert an external
influence on the individual, transforming intrinsic moral
consciousness into rigid constraint in order to enforce
members of society to fulfill corresponding obligations
and responsibilities in family and social life [4]. It
implements strict management and supervision on the
behaviors of individuals and groups by stimulating
individuals to make moral and ethical behavior choices
with external incentives, or by enforcing moral rules with
compulsive force. By institutionalizing specific, operable
moral norms, the institutional environment of morality
achieves the standardization and codification of morals,
and, by restraining and normalizing moral conduct,
society functions more effectively.
B. Necessity of Institutionalization of Morals
1) Change in external conditions of moral life.
Farming land confines the societal boundaries of farmers,
and promotes close community ties wherein people share
in mutual benefit. Moral supervision is easier to manage.
Regulating moral modes with people who share customs
and public opinions often have a better effect on people
when they are familiar with each other and have
long-term, daily interaction. The French sociologist,
Emile Durkheim, holds that the more moral significance
exchanged and influenced on each other by people, the
more strongly we perceive, and the greater the role it
plays in our lives. On the other hand, with the
development of a market economic society, the traditional
"acquaintance society" has been eliminated. In the new,
"strangers society" of the market economy, close,
emotional relationships dissolve, and public opinion fails
to play a powerful role in controlling and restraining
morality in society.
2) Growing disparity of social lifestyles. The moral
code of the market economy has proven inadequate in
creating an environment of public opinion to support the
continuation of traditional morality. It has been
unsuccessful in stimulating emotional support to
coordinate the interests of the group or society as a whole.
Self-interest has replaced group interest. Individuals
move away from the community and become
disconnected from traditional family life. The growing
disparity of wealth has created inequality and uneven
access to consumer products that directly impact social
lifestyles. This behavior endangers the social order. In
order to reintegrate people into the social order, moral
standards of behavior must once again appeal to a unified,
social conscience. This can only be achieved within the
mandatory institutional environment of morality. Only
with the support of compulsive moral legislation
produced by the institutional environment of morality can
morality be restored.
3) "Moral vacuum". During the social transformation
period, the old moral constraints faded, leaving new
moral constraints that have yet to be fully defined. Then
something unexpected happened. Social moral values
became disoriented and anomie resulted, weakening any
mechanism of moral control. The community could no
longer rely upon its own operating mechanisms or call
upon morality to be righteous in the face of a
deteriorating general moral tone. To end the instability of
moral autonomy and reestablish the proper functioning of
social interaction in the future, the construction, operation
and coordination of a new social mechanism is required.
IV. INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE: FROM MORAL
AUTONOMY TO MORAL HETERONOMY
A. Necessity and Possibility of the Transition from
Moral Autonomy to Heteronomy
The transition of morality from autonomy to
heteronomy is determined by examining the historical
characteristics of the period of social transformation in
China. In the process of transforming traditional society
into modern society, we have discovered that modern
society is ill equipped to cope with relationships that are
dependent on traditional moral education and individual
self-discipline. The relatively stable traditional value
system is out of balance, and the new moral system has
not yet been fully established. This has led to a society
devoid of spiritual beliefs, values and a reasonable moral
code. Moral education alone cannot solve the problems
caused by lack of morality. It has now become inevitable
that a society based on moral autonomy must be
transformed into a society based on moral heteronomy in
order to solve the problems.
First of all, institutional change requires time.
Though institutions can maintain relative stability, it
changes slowly. Change, brought about by the relative
price of resources, and the interaction of different interest
groups, drives institutions. But the evolution of an
institution is not only a long-term process of natural
development, it also has its own features. "The structure
dominating the way we operate is made up of the formal
rules, behavior of informal standards and their
enforcement characteristics. Of all can we quickly change
are the formal rules. We can't change the informal
constraints, at least in the short term; even our controlling
ability on implementation is also very limited [5]."
Therefore, if we want to promote the development of
China’s market economy through institutional change, we
should consider the pace at which institutions evolve, and
the characteristics of the institution. "When you work
hard on improving economic performance, you can only
change the formal rules, this is a very real problem. In
fact, you have to change the informal constraints [6]."
Only gradual and steady development of institutional
change can achieve effective economic performance.
Institutional change is path-dependent. North
explains that the institution evolves gradually, the past
and now is closely related with the future; they are so
closely related that history in general is a kind of story of
institutional evolution [7]. Different societies and even
different nationalities may possibly choose differing
institutional forms "The reason why institutional structure
shows path-dependence is that the past behavior, cultural
beliefs, social structure and organizations influence
values and social development, and thus suppress the
flexibility in departure from the old behavior pattern [8]."
Since our reform and opening up, China has gradually
moved into the market economy which is, in and of itself,
a type of legal, institutional economy. All the activities of
the institution require guarantees of law. Therefore, in the
process of morality development, we must follow the
same principles of institutionalization. All the rights and
obligations that exist between people, the boundaries of
behavior, the rules, and principles should also be
respected and enforced. This demands inevitable planning
from institutions and the legal system and, so, the
transformation of moral autonomy to moral heteronomy
also becomes inevitable.
B. Path of Change from Moral Autonomy to Moral
Heteronomy
Transforming moral autonomy to moral heteronomy
works to settle moral problems by legal and institutional
means. Just as an institution must undergo change, so
morality must change from autonomy to heteronomy.
There are two key requirements that set institutional
change in motion: Either it must be mandated or induced
to change. Mandatory institutional change is created by
the government with the power of the state behind it in
accordance with the needs of both the developing
economy and society. Without the expressed approval of
its societal members, the institution must innovate
regardless. Institutional innovation is carried out
top-down with the government at the top representing
administrative institutional innovation or institutional
innovation is mandatory. Induced institutional change is
advocated, organized, and implemented by individual or a
group of individuals who are opportunists seeking
spontaneous benefits [9]. Both mandatory and induced
institutional change create specific jobs to construct the
moral standards, with the moral legislation undergirding
the moral requirements and ethics binding certain social
members to the institution and the law. This permits the
request to be standardized and clarifies the form as
expressly stipulated to ensure the implementation of
morality by means of law. In realizing the transformation
of morality from autonomy to heteronomy, the key
requirements are then accomplished in the following three
ways:
1) Reinforce building administrative ethic rules and
administrative legislation
Administrative personnel are in charge of a certain
degree of public authority. They have some discretion
when handling public affairs. If there is no moral
restriction, it is possible for abuses of power to occur.
This kind of behavior will not only damage the interests
of the people, but also directly affect social morality.
Therefore, pursuing the construction of the institution of
administrative ethic rules and the administrative
legislation can prevent or reduce power corruption, and
improve the whole social moral environment.
To reinforce the building of administrative ethic
rules and administrative legislation, we can look to the
successful experiences and practices of foreign
institutions. Foreign countries have been constructing
moral standards and law since very early times. In
particular, the United States, Canada, Britain, Germany,
and other countries have enacted similar moral codes.
Many Asian countries have also promulgated clear
administrative ethic rules and regulations. China should
follow the lead from successful experience abroad, so as
to promote the rapid development of their moral
construction. At the same time, it must establish
supervision mechanisms, ensure the rules and legislation
are effectively and practically implemented. This will
have an immediate impact on the improvement of
administrative morality.
2) Strengthen the establishment of professional
ethics and industry legislation
The following two ways are considered for
strengthening the establishment of professional ethics:
First, establish industry association and formulate
industry norms. The professional moral standard
formulated by industry association has a very strong
binding effect on industry practitioners. Strictly speaking,
the professional moral standard, based in law, provides
the dual function of projecting charisma and applying
force of sanctions. Therefore, establishing industry
association strengthens professional ethics as it can more
fully benefit from induced institutional change. It adds
great weight to improving the moral level of internal
employees and cultivates morality in general. Second,
strengthening industry legislation legalizes and regulates
professional ethics and its rules. Violating professional
ethics, or behaving in such a way as to profane
professional ethics will be punished severely to
discourage illegal or irregular behavior. Violating
professional ethics must not only be condemned by public
opinion, but also receive sanctions from industry
legislation.
3) Enhance social morality education and public
legislation
In addition to strengthening the administrative areas
of the institutional environment of morality and the
professional ethics of various industries, it should also
enhance the moral construction and legislation in the area
of public life. Up until now, public opinion has played the
role of China’s public life to safeguard traditional
customs and the people's moral self-consciousness in an
attempt to preserve moral order. However, influenced by
the morality of the market economy, traditional morality
has deteriorated and the calculated rationalism of the
people has only grown stronger in direct proportion to the
dissolution of social justice and sense of shame that
follows. Social justice ethics and moral fundamentality
are destroyed. It is necessary to promote the construction
of social morality, and enhance the public morality
propaganda and education. It is also necessary to
reinforce the establishment of public ethics and morals
legislation in order to promote and strengthen social
morality construction in the form of institutions and law.
V. CONCLUSION
The moral autonomy and heteronomy exist
simultaneously. Morality is man’s voluntary pursuit of
conscience; moral autonomy. As Kant pointed out, "The
concept of autonomy and freedom connects each other
inseparably, the universal law of morality is always
accompanied by the concept of autonomy [10]." The moral
heteronomy provides a simple approach for the effective
functioning of morality. Although moral autonomy and
heteronomy coexist, it is the irrational institutional
structure that attempts to use one kind of institution to
replace the other completely. Moral heteronomy can only
be a part of the institutionalization of morality. We should
not institutionalize all ethics---it is an impossibility---or it
will deny the existence of morality all together. In the
process of moral transformation from autonomy to
heteronomy, we ought to be mindful of our limitations.
Institutions must coexist with its agent subjects. It needs
to be operated by people who have proven to have good
moral character in order to cultivate effective
performance and maintain its sense of urgency and
authority.
REFERENCES
[1]Benyu Guo, From heteronomy to autonomy—review on
moral type theory of Lawrence
Kohlberg[J].Journal of Nanjing Normal University (Social
Science),1999(5):71(Chinese)
[2]Wengu Zhou, Market economy: the best economic resources
allocation[J].Journal of Hainan University (Humanities &
Social).1993(01):21(Chinese)
[3]Xianxiang Lu, Qiaoling Zhu. New institutional
economics[M].Beijing:Peking
University
Press,
2007:98-99(Chinese)
[4]Jian Li, Autonomy and heteronomy: Institutional analysis of
morality,
[2006].http://article.chinalawinfo.com/article_print.asp?artic
leid=35445（Chinese）
[5][America] Douglass C. North, Translated by Zhimin Hu.
Understanding
the
process
of
economic
change[J].Comparative Economic and Social Systems,2004
(1):5.(Chinese)
[6][America] Douglass C. North, Translated by Zhimin Hu.
Understanding
the
process
of
economic
change[J].Comparative Economic and Social Systems, 2004
(1):6.(Chinese)
[7][America] Douglass C. North, On institution[J].Comparative
Economic and Social Systems, 1991(6):56(Chinese)
[8][America] John N. Drobak, Translated by Yuyan Zhang, etc.
The Frontiers of the new institutional economics[M].Beijing:
Economic Science Press,2003:7.(Chinese)
[9]Yifu Lin. Economic theory about institutional change:
induced change and mandatory change. R. Coase, translated
by Shouying Liu, etc. Property rights and institutional
change[M].Shanghai: Shanghai SDX Joint Publishing
Company,1991:384(Chinese)
[10]Immanuel Kant. Groundwork on the metaphysics of
morals.[M] Shanghai: Shanghai Century Publishing
Group,2005:77(Chinese)