Disabled Autonomy

Disability law is still undertheorized. In 2007, Ruth Colker wrote that disability law was undertheorized because it conflated “separate” with “unequal,” and because disability was largely ignored or poorly understood within theories of justice. The solution for Colker was to attach the anti-subordination perspective, which was developed to apply to race and sex, directly to disability. This Article argues that this transportation from the race and sex contexts was a partial solution, but is not sufficient to give full substance to disability law theory. Concepts from critical race theory and feminist jurisprudence have long been simply transported into the disability context, acting as an imperfect facsimile. The primary purpose of those concepts was to describe, analyze, and remedy problems primarily related to race and gender, not disability. While disability law has benefitted to some extent from inclusion in these legal theories, many of the unique features and complexities of disability law have been left on the table. This Article explores those complexities. Autonomy, usually thought of as an uncomplicated social good for other groups, is challenged in disability theory by two competing values. The value of anti-subordination is critical because it seeks to address, and redress, discrimination, sigma, and stereotyping. An anti-subordination perspective gives a voice and supplies resources to people with disabilities, and will counsel against choices that support stigma and stereotyping. An anti-subordination perspective might seek to limit a right to physician-assisted suicide, for example, because of concerns about exploitation and the messaging that disabled lives are not worth living. This runs counter to an autonomy-focused perspective, which would support the choice to end one’s life in the end stages of a terminal disease. An anti-eliminationism perspective advocates for the preservation of, and resources for, disabled lives. This comes to mean that not only are people with disabilities valued, but their disability is valued too. Instead of seeking to end Autism, for example, an anti-elimination perspective seeks to support Autistics. However, an anti-eliminationism perspective might also support the restriction of choice, and therefore come into conflict with autonomy, where there is a choice that results in the end of a disability. An anti-elimination perspective could seek to restrict the ability to selectively terminate pregnancies when a disability is found, for example. Anti-eliminationism inherently challenges the notion that getting rid of disability is a good thing. Parts I, II, and III of this Article describe the values of autonomy, anti-subordination, and anti-eliminationism in the disability context, and argue that these values are each critical components of disability law and theory. Part IV of this article provides an overview of some real-world examples where these values come into immediate conflict

Autonomy and Performance of Foreign Subsidiaries in five Transition Countries

The paper analyses the link between the autonomy according to business function and the performance of foreign subsidiaries in Slovenia, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia and Estonia. The novelty of the paper is in the deeper investigation of the multidimensionality of autonomy. Using the method of principal components, four business function factors relating to autonomy were obtained (technology, marketing, management, finance). The results supported the argument that the relationship between autonomy and performance depends on the type of autonomy. Marketing and finance are the most powerful dimensions of autonomy. Higher autonomy in marketing is negatively linked with technology upgrading, measured by productivity level, improvement of technological level of production equipment, and quality of products. The higher the financial autonomy of the subsidiaries the bigger the positive changes in all fields of performance.http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/40166/3/wp780.pd

(Im)possibilities of Autonomy: Social Movements In and Beyond Capital, the State and Development

Recently, we have witnessed the emergence of what appears to be a new set of claims in contemporary social movements based around the idea of autonomy. In this paper we interrogate this demand for autonomy. In order to do this, we first engage with existing literatures, identifying three main conceptions of autonomy: 1) autonomous practices vis-à-vis capital, or, what Negri calls, the ‘self-valorization’ of labour; 2) self-determination and independence from the state; and 3) alternatives to hegemonic discourses of development. We will then problematize and point out the central potentials, weaknesses and antagonisms at the heart of the concept of autonomy. We argue that social movements’ demands for autonomy point to, what Laclau and Mouffe call, the impossibility of society, the idea that society can never be complete. That is, there will always be resistances, such as those expressed by autonomous social movements. However, this also lets us understand the conception of autonomy to be incomplete. Autonomy itself is hence an impossibility. To point to these limits of the discourses of autonomy, we discuss how demands for autonomy are tied up with contemporary re-organizations of: 1) the capitalist workplace, characterized by discourses of autonomy, creativity and self-management; 2) the state, which increasingly outsources public services to independent, autonomous providers, which often have a more radical, social movement history; and 3) regimes of development, which today often emphasize local practices, participation and self-determination. Behind these critical reflections on the conception and practice of autonomy is the idea that autonomy should always be seen as something relational. That is, autonomy can never be fixed; there is no definite ground for demands for autonomy to stand on. Instead, social movements’ demands for autonomy are embedded in specific social, economic, political and cultural contexts, giving rise to possibilities as well as impossibilities of autonomous practices

A Critique of Alfred R Mele’s Work on Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy

The book, Autonomous Agents: From Self-Control to Autonomy (1995), by Alfred R. Mele, deals primarily with two main concepts, “self-control” and “individual autonomy,” and the relationship between them. The book is divided into two parts: (1) a view of self-control, the self-controlled person, and behaviour manifesting self-control, and (2) a view of personal autonomy, the autonomous person, and autonomous behaviour. Mele (Ibid.) defines self-control as the opposite of the Aristotelian concept of akrasia, or the contrary of akrasia, which implies weakness of will, incontinence, or lack of self-control—the state of mind in which one acts against one’s better judgement. According to Mele, the concept of self-control can be approached from two perspectives: (a) how self-control affects human behaviour, and (b) how self-control-associated behavior can enhance our understanding of ‘personal autonomy’ and ‘autonomous behaviour’—personal autonomy requires self-control, and autonomous persons and autonomous behaviour are naturally found together. Therefore, I might say that self-control is essential to enhancing one’s autonomy. In part I, we find an account of self-control where Mele argues that even an ideally self-controlled person might lack autonomy. In part II, Mele gives an explicit account of autonomy and explains what must be added to self-control to achieve autonomy. This is the pivotal claim made by Mele (dismantling the intuitively connected notions of self-control and autonomy)

Mixed Initiative Systems for Human-Swarm Interaction: Opportunities and Challenges

Human-swarm interaction (HSI) involves a number of human factors impacting human behaviour throughout the interaction. As the technologies used within HSI advance, it is more tempting to increase the level of swarm autonomy within the interaction to reduce the workload on humans. Yet, the prospective negative effects of high levels of autonomy on human situational awareness can hinder this process. Flexible autonomy aims at trading-off these effects by changing the level of autonomy within the interaction when required; with mixed-initiatives combining human preferences and automation's recommendations to select an appropriate level of autonomy at a certain point of time. However, the effective implementation of mixed-initiative systems raises fundamental questions on how to combine human preferences and automation recommendations, how to realise the selected level of autonomy, and what the future impacts on the cognitive states of a human are. We explore open challenges that hamper the process of developing effective flexible autonomy. We then highlight the potential benefits of using system modelling techniques in HSI by illustrating how they provide HSI designers with an opportunity to evaluate different strategies for assessing the state of the mission and for adapting the level of autonomy within the interaction to maximise mission success metrics.Comment: Author version, accepted at the 2018 IEEE Annual Systems Modelling Conference, Canberra, Australi

Robots, Autonomy, and Responsibility

We study whether robots can satisfy the conditions for agents fit to be held responsible in a normative sense, with a focus on autonomy and self-control. An analogy between robots and human groups enables us to modify arguments concerning collective responsibility for studying questions of robot responsibility. On the basis of Alfred R. Mele’s history-sensitive account of autonomy and responsibility it can be argued that even if robots were to have all the capacities usually required of moral agency, their history as products of engineering would undermine their autonomy and thus responsibility

Measuring autonomy and emergence via Granger causality

Concepts of emergence and autonomy are central to artificial life and related cognitive and behavioral sciences. However, quantitative and easy-to-apply measures of these phenomena are mostly lacking. Here, I describe quantitative and practicable measures for both autonomy and emergence, based on the framework of multivariate autoregression and specifically Granger causality. G-autonomy measures the extent to which the knowing the past of a variable helps predict its future, as compared to predictions based on past states of external (environmental) variables. G-emergence measures the extent to which a process is both dependent upon and autonomous from its underlying causal factors. These measures are validated by application to agent-based models of predation (for autonomy) and flocking (for emergence). In the former, evolutionary adaptation enhances autonomy; the latter model illustrates not only emergence but also downward causation. I end with a discussion of relations among autonomy, emergence, and consciousness

How Autonomy Can Legitimate Beneficial Coercion

Respect for autonomy and beneficence are frequently regarded as the two essential principles of medical ethics, and the potential for these two principles to come into conflict is often emphasised as a fundamental problem. On the one hand, we have the value of beneficence, the driving force of medicine, which demands that medical professionals act to protect or promote the wellbeing of patients or research subjects. On the other, we have a principle of respect for autonomy, which demands that we respect the self-regarding decisions of individuals. As well as routinely coming into opposition with the demands of beneficence in medicine, the principle of respect for autonomy in medical ethics is often seen as providing protection against beneficial coercion (i.e. paternalism) in medicine. However, these two values are not as straightforwardly opposed as they may appear on the surface. In fact, the way that we understand autonomy can lead us to implicitly sanction a great deal of paternalistic action, or can smuggle in paternalistic elements under the guise of respect for autonomy. This paper is dedicated to outlining three ways in which the principle of respect for autonomy, depending on how we understand the concept of autonomy, can sanction or smuggle in paternalistic elements. As the specific relationship between respect for autonomy and beneficence will depend on how we conceive of autonomy, I begin by outlining two dominant conceptions of autonomy, both of which have great influence in medical ethics. I then turn to the three ways in which how we understand or employ autonomy can increase or support paternalism: firstly, when we equate respect for autonomy with respect for persons; secondly, when our judgements about what qualifies as an autonomous action contain intersubjective elements; and thirdly, when we expect autonomy to play an instrumental role, that is, when we expect people, when they are acting autonomously, to act in a way that promotes or protects their own wellbeing. I then provide a proposal for how we might work to avoid this. I will suggest that it may be impossible to fully separate paternalistic elements out from judgements about autonomy. Instead, we are better off looking at why we are motivated to use judgements about autonomy as a means of restricting the actions of patients or research subjects. I will argue that this is a result of discomfort about speaking directly about our beneficent motivations in medical ethics. Perhaps we can reduce the incentive to smuggle in these beneficent motivations under the guise of autonomy by talking directly about beneficent motivations in medicine. This will also force us to recognise paternalistic motivations in medicine when they appear, and to justify paternalism where it occurs