Autonomy Guarantee a Person Harmful Oneself? To

¶ … autonomy guarantee a person harmful oneself? To ? Explain response ethical rationale. Part the principle of autonomy certainly does not grant an individual the right to harm others. Autonomy may be one of the most fundamental aspects of free will, or is better thought of as the ultimate expression of free will since it is not hampered. However, the autonomous exercise of that free will only exists within the context of other ethical considerations.

In particular, Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative is an ethical principle that explicitly denotes that autonomy does not permit the harming of others. Kant's categorical imperative is the belief that there are certain actions or deeds that are innately moral, and that must be followed (Guthrie, 2008). Conversely, there are also some actions and deeds that are fundamentally immoral, and should never be engaged in.

This concept relates to the notion that people should not inflict others as an exercise of autonomy because one of the most quintessential examples of a categorical imperative is the proverbial golden rule: that one should do unto others as one wants done unto oneself (Klempner, 2007). Ergo, it is not a proper application of autonomy to harm others because of inherent ethical restrictions in the matter (Hirst, 1934, p. 328). Additionally, it is well noted that autonomy does not automatically guarantee someone the right to harm oneself.

From a strictly theoretical perspective, however, such a practice or proclivity is acceptable and well in the means of autonomy. However, one also must consider the relationships that people have with one another, specifically those in which there are individuals who are dependent upon others. Dependency can take several different forms, from children who are dependent upon parents for food clothing and shelter, to executives who are dependent upon executives and corporations for retirement and benefits packages, as well as salaries.

In these cases, it is not acceptable for the individuals who have dependents to wantonly harm themselves, since doing so would ultimately affect others. There is actually quite a substantial bit of difference between beneficence and non-maleficence. Beneficence is a synonym for goodness -- it implies engaging in acts that are altruistic and that specifically project goodness for the one who is the recipient of that act (Beauchamp, 2008).

There also is somewhat of a selfless quality to beneficence, in which the author of that action is motivated not by his or her own personal needs or sense of gain but by that of the recipient of the act. However, non-maleficence implies a certain degree of neutrality. For all practical purposes, non-maleficence could actually be termed non-beneficence as well, because it simply denotes an action in which one is not engaging in noxious or harmful behavior.

But, at the same time, such behavior is not in and of itself inherently good either. In identifying parallels between beneficence and non-maleficence, it is important to understand the degree of self-motivation in each. Whereas in the former individuals are not motivated by their own regards but by those of another, in the latter individuals would more readily consider their own needs and actuate events that would not harm themselves or others.

An example of an act of beneficence is a practitioner (such as myself) who chooses to work long hours, despite the fact that he or she is on salary and will not.