I sense some confusion in the distinctions made between ethics of autonomy, community, and divinity. First off, social science research has observed that sickly, stressed societies tend toward collectivism; while healthy, unstressed societies tend toward individualism. But it gets complicated in the real world, as these social science constructs don't perfectly map onto conventional meanings of those words, at least in Western culture and in WEIRD bias. Only the ethic of autonomy seems fully developed in this theory, as the other two are a bit muddled. The separation of all three is not clear in all cases, maybe not even in most cases, especially if we cast our net more widely.
Let's look at an example from the anthropological record. According to Daniel Everett, a healthy, unstressed population like the Piraha are very individualistic, as many hunter-gatherer tribes tend to be. Individual Piraha act autonomously, and collective action is very limited as top-down organizing is non-existent, but that isn't to say there isn't a strong sense of community and communal identity. It's just there is no authority or hierarchy to enforce group conformity and collective action. It's the authority of a shared culture that holds it together, very much grounded a sense of place not in abstract ideologies and vast identities (e.g., ethno-nationalism).
So, autonomy isn't necessarily and inevitably opposed to community, rather opposed to collectivism. We shouldn't confuse and conflate community with collectivism. The difference is collectivism is defined by authoritarianism, xenophobia, social dominance, conventionalism, conformity, etc. But community doesn't require any of that. This is a distinction that many anarchists and left-libertarians (e.g., anarcho-syndicalists) would maintain, as would paleo-conservatives and a variety of other communitarians. But it might be easy for community as communitarianism, when under highly stressful conditions, to become collectivism.
Likewise, the ethic of autonomy might not always be separate from an ethic of divinity. Many religious traditions (Buddhism, Gnosticism, mysticism, Protestantism, Anabaptism, etc) have emphasized an individual relationship to the divine or individual practice of spirituality. They tend to allow for more autonomy and often a stronger development of individual self, with which to hold oneself apart in direct divine presence or mindfulness. Particularly, in the West, the ethic of autonomy came from various influences of non-Catholic Christianity, with the personal experience of divinity co-emergent with the still small voice (conscience, inner voice).
The comment is cut off. I guess it was too long. Here is the full last paragraph:
Likewise, the ethic of autonomy might not always be separate from an ethic of divinity. Many religious traditions (Buddhism, Gnosticism, mysticism, Protestantism, Anabaptism, etc) have emphasized an individual relationship to the divine or individual practice of spirituality. They tend to allow for more autonomy and often a stronger development of individual self, with which to hold oneself apart in direct divine presence or mindfulness. Particularly, in the West, the ethic of autonomy came from various influences of non-Catholic Christianity, with the personal experience of divinity co-emergent with the still small voice (conscience, inner voice).
There is an amusing parallel between the 3 ethic pillars and traditional Christian virtues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_virtues) that provide a moral foundation for the believers. In my view, faith maps to divinity, hope to autonomy and charity to community. I suppose religions work for a reason?
The most parsimonious explanation is the creator of 3 ethic pillars was raised Christian or raised in a Christian-majority society (as opposed to Japan, India, or central Africa) where Christian virtues are in the general culture. Even without consciously knowing them, the creator could easily internalize the Christian virtues without being able to identify them. There is a lot in Western society that is secularized Christianity, as much in Christianity once was incorporated from Pagan philosophy.
They'd just seem familiar and would just make sense or feel right, such as the tendency in Christian culture to group things in threes, less common in China where groups of two or five might be preferred because of a different tradition (Taoism, Confucianism, etc). That is how enculturation works. The vast majority of cultural knowledge each of us carries is unconscious and, if asked about it, we couldn't say where we learned it from or where it originates.
I sense some confusion in the distinctions made between ethics of autonomy, community, and divinity. First off, social science research has observed that sickly, stressed societies tend toward collectivism; while healthy, unstressed societies tend toward individualism. But it gets complicated in the real world, as these social science constructs don't perfectly map onto conventional meanings of those words, at least in Western culture and in WEIRD bias. Only the ethic of autonomy seems fully developed in this theory, as the other two are a bit muddled. The separation of all three is not clear in all cases, maybe not even in most cases, especially if we cast our net more widely.
Let's look at an example from the anthropological record. According to Daniel Everett, a healthy, unstressed population like the Piraha are very individualistic, as many hunter-gatherer tribes tend to be. Individual Piraha act autonomously, and collective action is very limited as top-down organizing is non-existent, but that isn't to say there isn't a strong sense of community and communal identity. It's just there is no authority or hierarchy to enforce group conformity and collective action. It's the authority of a shared culture that holds it together, very much grounded a sense of place not in abstract ideologies and vast identities (e.g., ethno-nationalism).
So, autonomy isn't necessarily and inevitably opposed to community, rather opposed to collectivism. We shouldn't confuse and conflate community with collectivism. The difference is collectivism is defined by authoritarianism, xenophobia, social dominance, conventionalism, conformity, etc. But community doesn't require any of that. This is a distinction that many anarchists and left-libertarians (e.g., anarcho-syndicalists) would maintain, as would paleo-conservatives and a variety of other communitarians. But it might be easy for community as communitarianism, when under highly stressful conditions, to become collectivism.
Likewise, the ethic of autonomy might not always be separate from an ethic of divinity. Many religious traditions (Buddhism, Gnosticism, mysticism, Protestantism, Anabaptism, etc) have emphasized an individual relationship to the divine or individual practice of spirituality. They tend to allow for more autonomy and often a stronger development of individual self, with which to hold oneself apart in direct divine presence or mindfulness. Particularly, in the West, the ethic of autonomy came from various influences of non-Catholic Christianity, with the personal experience of divinity co-emergent with the still small voice (conscience, inner voice).
The comment is cut off. I guess it was too long. Here is the full last paragraph:
Likewise, the ethic of autonomy might not always be separate from an ethic of divinity. Many religious traditions (Buddhism, Gnosticism, mysticism, Protestantism, Anabaptism, etc) have emphasized an individual relationship to the divine or individual practice of spirituality. They tend to allow for more autonomy and often a stronger development of individual self, with which to hold oneself apart in direct divine presence or mindfulness. Particularly, in the West, the ethic of autonomy came from various influences of non-Catholic Christianity, with the personal experience of divinity co-emergent with the still small voice (conscience, inner voice).
There is an amusing parallel between the 3 ethic pillars and traditional Christian virtues (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_virtues) that provide a moral foundation for the believers. In my view, faith maps to divinity, hope to autonomy and charity to community. I suppose religions work for a reason?
The most parsimonious explanation is the creator of 3 ethic pillars was raised Christian or raised in a Christian-majority society (as opposed to Japan, India, or central Africa) where Christian virtues are in the general culture. Even without consciously knowing them, the creator could easily internalize the Christian virtues without being able to identify them. There is a lot in Western society that is secularized Christianity, as much in Christianity once was incorporated from Pagan philosophy.
They'd just seem familiar and would just make sense or feel right, such as the tendency in Christian culture to group things in threes, less common in China where groups of two or five might be preferred because of a different tradition (Taoism, Confucianism, etc). That is how enculturation works. The vast majority of cultural knowledge each of us carries is unconscious and, if asked about it, we couldn't say where we learned it from or where it originates.