The External Enabling Conditions of Moral Agency

 

Introduction
Moral agency—the capacity to act with reflection, responsibility, and care—arises within a web of living conditions that sustain coherence between body, mind, and world. It depends on physical safety, psychological stability, freedom of choice, and the recognition that one’s actions have meaning within a shared life. When these foundations are secure, moral understanding deepens and conduct becomes ordered. When they are weakened, fear, fatigue, and disconnection erode the capacity to respond with clarity and compassion.

This article explores the external enabling conditions of moral agency—the biological, psychological, and social systems that make ethical life workable in practice. Drawing on neuroscience, psychology, and public health, it outlines four essential domains: bodily integrity, psychological stability, autonomy, and social recognition. Understanding these foundations helps clarify how moral life depends on the structures that hold it together and why their preservation is central to human flourishing.

At Northern Sage Kung Fu, this reality is experienced directly through practice. The training hall forms an ecology of mutual cultivation where security, steadiness, autonomy, and regard for others are continually exercised. Each exchange, whether structured or spontaneous, tests how well a student can remain coherent within relation—holding balance, awareness, and purpose while meeting another’s energy. Over time, these disciplines reveal that moral strength grows through alignment: the steady coordination of body, attention, and respect that sustains meaningful action in the world.

External Enabling Conditions of Moral Agency
The internal capacities of moral agency outlined in my previous article, depend on a number of external conditions that sustain a viable relationship between organism and environment, enabling moral agency to operate in practice. Public health research identifies these as the social determinants of health—structural factors that shape physical safety, psychological stability, autonomy, and social participation.[1]

Understanding these external enabling conditions is vital because moral agency does not subsist by intention alone. It is sustained through an ecological network of biological, psychological, and social supports that make coherent action possible. When these foundations erode, even principled individuals become constrained by survival, fear, or isolation. To grasp these conditions is therefore to understand how ethics is lived—how the capacity for moral action must be protected and cultivated through the structures that sustain human life itself.

The World Health Organization defines health as “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity,” underscoring that human flourishing requires more than mere survival.[2] These enabling conditions form the ecological and social foundation upon which the internal architecture of agency can function. In this sense, the WHO’s conception of well-being is functionally continuous with the conditions necessary for moral life.

The relation between internal and external systems is inherently reciprocal. Stable environments support cognitive and emotional regulation; well-regulated agents, in turn, foster the predictability, cooperation, and trust that stabilize their surroundings. The viability of moral agency therefore depends on a continuous feedback loop between self-regulation and social regulation—a dynamic coupling that integrates the biological and ecological dimensions of moral life.[3] Developmental evidence further shows that early-life adversity and chronic deprivation can disrupt these coupling mechanisms: prolonged exposure to toxic stress reshapes physiological reactivity, executive function, and affective control, constraining the capacity for reflection and self-governance across the lifespan.[4]

Each enabling condition—bodily integrity, psychological stability, autonomy, and social recognition—marks a distinct domain through which the viability of moral functioning is either maintained or undermined.

i) Bodily Integrity
Agency begins in the body. Without physical safety and physiological integrity, the cognitive and affective systems that support deliberation and responsibility cannot function as intended. The World Health Organization identifies protection from injury, disease prevention, and environmental safety as foundational determinants of human well-being.[5] Public health research confirms that unequal exposure to malnutrition, unsafe environments, and chronic illness systematically undermines the capacity for responsible agency.[6] The pathways linking these determinants to moral capacity are physiological: disparities in safety, nutrition, and disease exposure alter neural development and stress regulation, constraining the preconditions of self-governance.

The mechanisms are direct. Injury or disease redirects cognitive resources toward immediate survival demands, weakening executive attention and long-range planning.[7] Neurological trauma disrupts prefrontal circuits that regulate impulse and judgment, while persistent threat hyperactivates stress-response systems, biasing perception toward immediacy and danger.[8] Chronic exposure to unsafe environments corrodes self-trust and destabilizes embodied autonomy. In each case, violation of bodily integrity erodes the cognitive scaffolding upon which moral self-governance depends. To sustain moral agency, the living body must remain intact, secure, and capable of regulating its own biological equilibrium—the first condition of coherent moral life.

Just as bodily harm undermines agency, cultivating physical vitality enhances it. Adequate nutrition, restorative sleep, safe surroundings, and regular physical activity sustain the neural and hormonal balance required for attention, foresight, and emotional regulation.[9] Exercise, for instance, increases prefrontal connectivity and stress resilience, improving both impulse control and empathic attunement.[10] Practices that integrate mind and body—such as martial arts, qigong, and contemplative movement—reinforce proprioceptive awareness and self-trust, strengthening the embodied stability upon which moral deliberation depends. In moments of threat, these same capacities form the basis of self-defense—the ability to protect life without abandoning composure, to act decisively while remaining ethically centered. In this sense, bodily cultivation is not ancillary to moral life; it is its most elemental discipline, anchoring ethical capacity in the health and coherence of the living organism.

iI) Psychological Stability
Psychological stability is indispensable for moral agency. The World Health Organization identifies mental health and social inclusion as critical determinants of well-being.[11] Under chronic stress or trauma, the brain’s capacity for reflective regulation collapses into survival-based processing. Amy Arnsten has shown that acute stress impairs prefrontal–limbic integration, redirecting control from reflective to reactive circuitry.[12] Bessel van der Kolk and colleagues demonstrate that overwhelming threat reorganizes perception and memory, locking survivors into patterns of vigilance, avoidance, or dissociation.[13] Neuroimaging studies reveal that stress-induced hyperactivation of the amygdala and hippocampal dysfunction fragment memory and continuity of self, undermining deliberation and foresight.[14] The result is a narrowing of moral perspective: the individual’s evaluative field contracts to immediate threat, diminishing the capacity for reflective judgment, empathy, and long-range commitment.

The mechanisms of this collapse are both biological and experiential. Prolonged threat exposure recalibrates neural thresholds for arousal, biasing perception toward danger and exhausting the regulatory resources needed for moral coherence. When fear becomes chronic, executive oversight yields to limbic dominance, and the temporal horizon of agency shortens to the next moment of anticipated harm. In such states, the mind loses its capacity for narrative continuity—the psychological thread through which moral reasoning, empathy, and accountability unfold.

Yet the same systems that falter under stress can be strengthened through intentional cultivation. Practices that regulate emotion and restore prefrontal–limbic balance—such as controlled breathing, mindfulness, and contemplative movement—enhance resilience and expand the temporal range of awareness.[15] Social connection, therapeutic intervention, and creative expression similarly restore coherence by re-establishing trust, meaning, and continuity of self.[16] Psychological stability therefore functions not merely as the absence of distress but as a cultivated equilibrium: a capacity to remain centered amid uncertainty, to integrate emotion with reflection, and to sustain moral perspective under pressure.

iii) Autonomy and Freedom from Coercion
Autonomy depends on the external freedom to deliberate and act without coercion or manipulation. The World Health Organization emphasizes that participation and control over one’s circumstances are essential determinants of well-being, linking perceived agency to both psychological and physiological resilience.[17] Neuroscience confirms this relationship: coercive threat activates amygdala–hypothalamic stress pathways, releasing cortisol that disrupts prefrontal regulation and undermines decision-making.[18] Behavioral research further demonstrates that sustained subordination or uncontrollability produces learned helplessness—marked by passivity, withdrawal, and diminished self-efficacy.[19]

These mechanisms connect the social and biological dimensions of autonomy. Manipulation and domination distort deliberation not merely by constraining choice but by corrupting the informational environment and degrading confidence in one’s own reasons. Over time, the self’s evaluative center is displaced by external control. The result is not the absence of action but its deformation: behavior that mimics intentionality yet lacks the authorship that gives moral life its integrity.

Just as coercion erodes agency, environments that foster autonomy strengthen it. Experiences of voluntary choice, mastery, and meaningful participation activate reward and prefrontal networks that reinforce motivation and self-regulation.[20] Autonomy-supportive contexts—whether in education, work, or community life—promote resilience by aligning internal values with external opportunity.[21]In such settings, individuals learn that their actions matter, that effort produces effect, and that cooperation need not require subordination. Training disciplines that integrate independence with structure—such as martial arts, collaborative problem-solving, or self-directed learning—further consolidate this sense of self-authored efficacy. Through such cultivation, freedom becomes not merely the absence of constraint but the embodied capacity to act coherently within a shared moral order.

iv) Social Recognition and Participation
Moral agency is inherently social. It depends on recognition by others that one’s actions and commitments carry weight within shared life. The World Health Organization identifies social inclusion and participation as primary determinants of mental health and functional well-being.[22] Experimental and epidemiological studies confirm that social isolation and exclusion heighten stress reactivity, disrupt executive function, and impair cognitive performance.[23] Denial of recognition—through degradation, marginalization, or sustained isolation—undermines motivation, constricts perceived options, and weakens the capacity for reflective moral action.

Conversely, environments marked by inclusion, validation, and reciprocal acknowledgment strengthen cognitive control, emotional regulation, and resilience. Recognition functions as more than social courtesy—it is a regulatory condition that sustains coherence between self and world. To be seen as capable of reason and response is to inhabit one’s moral agency more fully; it affirms that one’s actions have significance within the moral field of others. Recognition thus serves as a stabilizing force within moral ecology, maintaining the feedback loop through which autonomy and social trust reinforce one another.

Communities that cultivate participation and mutual regard do more than protect moral agency—they expand it. Cooperative interaction, shared decision-making, and acts of acknowledgment strengthen the neural and affective systems that underpin empathy, self-regulation, and perspective-taking.[24] Dialogical engagement fosters narrative coherence by allowing individuals to articulate their values and have them affirmed within collective life.[25] In this way, participation operates as a form of moral training: it habituates responsiveness to others while deepening one’s sense of self as a contributor to shared meaning. Cultures of respect, reciprocity, and trust thus transform recognition from a passive condition into an active practice—the ongoing creation of moral space in which agency flourishes.

Safeguarding the Foundations of Moral Life
Taken together, these four enabling domains—bodily integrity, psychological stability, autonomy, and social recognition—form the structural foundations upon which moral life depends. When the body is harmed, cognition collapses into survival; when the mind is unsettled, reflection fragments; when freedom is constrained, choice loses direction; and when recognition is denied, responsibility loses its ground. Each condition is fragile, vulnerable to disruption by violence, deprivation, or neglect.

At the societal level, institutions such as education, healthcare, and justice provide the broader stability that protects these foundations and allows individuals to live meaningfully within a coherent moral order.[26] Preserving life in this fuller sense is a functional necessity—it safeguards the biological, psychological, and social architectures through which moral agency develops and endures.

When these foundations are cared for, the capacity for moral life expands. Strength, stability, freedom, and recognition are not separate virtues but dimensions of the same living system through which coherence and compassion emerge. The cultivation practiced daily at Northern Sage Kung Fu reflects this unity: attentive movement, balanced mind, disciplined autonomy, and mutual respect form the groundwork for integrity in action. Within this discipline, self-defense becomes the living expression of moral preservation—the moment when training, awareness, and restraint converge to protect life without losing balance or humanity. To safeguard these foundations is to sustain the rhythm of moral existence itself—the steady alignment of body, mind, and community that allows human beings to act with purpose and grace.

 

 

About The Author

Nathan A. Wright
Nathan is the Managing Director and Chief Instructor at Northern Sage Kung Fu Academy, and Chief Representative of Luo Guang Yu Seven Star Praying Mantis in Canada and China. With over 25 years of experience living in China, he is deeply committed to passing on traditional martial arts in its most sincere form. As part of his passion Nathan regularly writes on related topics of self-defense, combat, health, philosophy, ethics, personal cultivation, and leadership. Email Nathan if you have questions on this article, or if you have interest in learning more about studying traditional Seven Star Praying Mantis Kung Fu.

 

 

 

End Notes
[1] Michael Marmot, “Social Determinants of Health Inequalities,” Lancet 365, no. 9464 (2005): 1099–1104; Paula Braveman et al., “The Social Determinants of Health: It’s Time to Consider the Causes of the Causes,” Public Health Reports 129, no. 1_suppl2 (2014): 19–31.
[2] World Health Organization, Constitution of the World Health Organization (Geneva: WHO, 1946, reaffirmed 2020).
[3] Thomas Fuchs, “The Ecology of the Brain: Embodiment and the Dynamics of Interaction,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 21, no. 9 (2017): 609–17.
[4] Jack P. Shonkoff et al., “The Lifelong Effects of Early Childhood Adversity and Toxic Stress,” Pediatrics 129, no. 1 (2012): e232–46; Clyde Hertzman and Tom Boyce, “How Experience Gets Under the Skin to Create Gradients in Developmental Health,” Annual Review of Public Health 31 (2020): 329–47.
[5] World Health Organization, Closing the Gap in a Generation: Health Equity through Action on the Social Determinants of Health (Geneva: WHO, 2008), 1–3.
[6] Michael Marmot, “The Health Gap: The Challenge of an Unequal World: The Argument,” International Journal of Epidemiology 46, no. 4 (2017): 1313–18.
[7] Ralph Adolphs, “Human Lesion Studies in the 21st Century,” Neuron 109, no. 21 (2021): 3373–89.
[8] Amy F. T. Arnsten, “Stress Signaling Pathways That Impair Prefrontal Cortex Structure and Function,” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 10, no. 6 (2009): 410–22.
[9] World Health Organization. Physical Activity Factsheet. Geneva: WHO, 2023; see also Hillman, C. H., Erickson, K. I., & Kramer, A. F. (2008). “Be smart, exercise your heart: exercise effects on brain and cognition.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9(1), 58–65.
[10] oss, M. W., et al. (2013). “Bridging animal and human models of exercise-induced brain plasticity.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 17(10), 525–544; Tang, Y. Y., et al. (2009). “Short-term meditation training improves attention and self-regulation.” PNAS, 106(37), 14130–14134.
[11] World Health Organization, Promoting Mental Health: Concepts, Emerging Evidence, Practice (Geneva: WHO, 2004), 12–15.
[12] Arnsten, “Stress Signaling Pathways,” 418.
[13] Bessel A. van der Kolk et al., “Trauma and Memory: Mechanisms and Treatment,” Frontiers in Psychology 12 (2021): 771–98.
[14] Rachel Yehuda et al., “Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder,” Nature Reviews Disease Primers 1, no. 1 (2015): 15057.
[15] Davidson, Richard J., and Antoine Lutz. “Buddha’s brain: Neuroplasticity and meditation.” IEEE Signal Processing Magazine 25, no. 1 (2008): 176–174; Tang, Yi-Yuan, Britta K. Hölzel, and Michael I. Posner. “The neuroscience of mindfulness meditation.” Nature Reviews Neuroscience 16, no. 4 (2015): 213–225.
[16] Siegel, Daniel J. The Developing Mind: How Relationships and the Brain Interact to Shape Who We Are. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press, 2020; Cozolino, Louis. The Neuroscience of Human Relationships: Attachment and the Developing Social Brain. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014.
[17] World Health Organization, Closing the Gap in a Generation, 4–6.
[18] Arnsten, “Stress Signaling Pathways,” 414–16.
[19] Steven Maier and Martin Seligman, “Learned Helplessness at Fifty: Insights from Neuroscience,” Psychological Review 123, no. 4 (2016): 349–67.
[20] Murayama, Kou, et al. “How self-determination theory can advance the understanding of motivation in educational contexts.” Contemporary Educational Psychology 61 (2020): 101860; Leotti, Lauren A., and Mauricio R. Delgado. “The inherent reward of choice.” Psychological Science 22, no. 10 (2011): 1310–1318.
[21] Ryan, Richard M., and Edward L. Deci. Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York: Guilford Press, 2017; Wrzesniewski, Amy, and Jane E. Dutton. “Crafting a job: Revisioning employees as active crafters of their work.” Academy of Management Review 26, no. 2 (2001): 179–201.
[22] World Health Organization, Social Determinants of Mental Health (Geneva: WHO, 2014), 3–7.
[23] ohn T. Cacioppo and Louise C. Hawkley, “Perceived Social Isolation and Cognition,” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, no. 10 (2009): 447–54; Julianne Holt-Lunstad et al., “Loneliness and Social Isolation as Risk Factors for Mortality: A Meta-Analytic Review,” Perspectives on Psychological Science 10, no. 2 (2015): 227–37.
[24] Eisenberger, Naomi I., and Matthew D. Lieberman. “Why rejection hurts: A common neural alarm system for physical and social pain.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 8, no. 7 (2004): 294–300; Cacioppo, John T., and Louise C. Hawkley. “Perceived social isolation and cognition.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13, no. 10 (2009): 447–454.
[25] Honneth, Axel. The Struggle for Recognition: The Moral Grammar of Social Conflicts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1995; Bruner, Jerome. Making Stories: Law, Literature, Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
[26] Ichiro Kawachi and S.V. Subramanian, “Social Capital and Health: Implications for Public Health and Health Equity,” Annual Review of Public Health 42 (2021): 37–56.