Formation and Transcendence: Institutional Change from Moral Autonomy to Heteronomy
Yi-fang Li
Business school,Hunan University of Technology,ZhuZhouHunan, China
()
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 conditionssurrounding the moral life of a society, brought about by the transition of the old to the new, has led to a growing disparity ofsocial 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 buildingadministrative 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; Autonomy; Heteronomy; Institutional Change
Since the advent of reform and opening up in China, productivity of our country has greatly improved. However, as a consequence, a negative phenomenonhas 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 toa moral agent’s internalizedsense 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 subjectsperform 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 toexternal 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 thesocial order as defined by the behaviorof 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 autonomygradually absorbs and acceptsmorality as conveyed by moral heteronomy: Its influence --via external heteronomy, as determined by the society and the other –is transformedinto the moral agent’s inner moral emotion.In the process of consciously acceptingheteronomyconduct 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 toraise 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 individualsto servetheir 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 economyis 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 withthe economic activity.It is expected that each subjectassume 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 abilityto 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 stimulatingindividuals to make moral and ethical behaviorchoices with external incentives, or by enforcing moral rules with compulsive force. By institutionalizingspecific, 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 ofmoral 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 peoplewhen 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, andthe 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 ofsocial 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 standardsof 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 constraintsfaded, 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
- 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 relationshipsthat 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 changerequires 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 aninstitution 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 canwe quickly change are the formal rules. We can't change the informal constraints, at least in the short term; even our controlling abilityon implementation is also very limited[5]."
Therefore, if wewant 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 institutionevolves 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 organizationsinfluence 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 shouldalso 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.
- 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 changefrom 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 themoral standards, with the moral legislationundergirding 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 fromautonomy to heteronomy, the key requirements are then accomplished in the following three ways:
1)Reinforce buildingadministrative ethic rules and administrative legislation
Administrativepersonnel are in charge of a certain degree of public authority.They have some discretionwhen handling public affairs.If there is no moral restriction, it is possibleforabuses 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 theconstruction 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 canlook to the successful experiences and practices of foreign institutions. Foreign countries havebeen 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 practicallyimplemented. 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 bindingeffect 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 associationstrengthens professional ethicsas 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, strengtheningindustry legislationlegalizes 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.