Donnagan Gone Again

My main objection to Donnagan, as I mentioned in class is the part where he denies that one can make a self-sacrifice that would "be at the cost of that faculty in the giver, or of his life." And he gives the example: "One may not blind oneself to save another from blindness." I find this to be incoherent on his part, especially since he is a fan of autonomy. I can see WHY he would object that, because it does lower one’s ability to have autonomy in some sense, but it is, I think severely more constraining on someone’s autonomy not to be able to make such choices or heroic sacrifices. Of course, I acknowledge the concern raised in class that one shouldn’t kill one’s self for a bag of skittles. So, I think self-sacrifice isn’t a limitless thing. But, for fans of autonomy, I think they will not want it limited in such a strict way as Donnagan is implying. For it is a funny sort of autonomy, where you cannot make a choice to give what you have to give. Again, I don’t want to push this too far. But I think things like what Tinkerbell did for peter pan (which is my nerdy, example...because, I love that story, and I have all the Pan-related movies on DVD, and...I mean...nothing, you saw NOTHING!) Eg. Poisoning herself because she knew it was the only way to stop him from drinking the poison himself; is a very heroic, and morally praiseworthy act. It may be supererogatory, but I do not think the autonomy theorist would want to disculde it as something of moral worth like Donnagan appears to be doing. Not that I’m an autonomy theorist...just I think it’s an odd thing for Donnagan to claim that’s all. I guess you DO lose some of your most precious autonomy when you are faced with such an action. But, I think you lose almost as much autonomy if the option is closed to you, and you must never be allowed to freely make that choice. Or something like that.