Member-only story
When a “Clear Conscience” Creates Conflict
On moral autonomy, social expectations, and the question of where our ultimate obligations lie
It’s a question that haunts many of us, not just during quiet moments of reflection but sometimes erupting in existential crises: Should I act according to my own moral convictions, even when they contradict what my community, profession, or society expects of me?
The answer seems simple at first — who wouldn’t say yes to personal integrity, to following one’s conscience, to incorruptibility? But it’s not that straightforward. Moral autonomy comes with a price, and often it’s not the world that bends, but the individual who gets worn down in the process.
The concept of ethical autonomy
Let’s begin with one of the most uncompromising thinkers on moral self-responsibility: Immanuel Kant. For Kant, moral law isn’t something external dictated by gods, kings, or conventions, but something that emerges from the subject’s own reason. In his Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785), he formulated his famous maxim:
“Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
