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).
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?
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).
I saw something in Scientific American recently. Shared the text here on Substack. Some highlights only, but relevant to this substack.
https://angelinazarkova.substack.com/p/consciousness-and-data
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?