This essay explores the idea of moral autonomy as self-legislation and presents the model of autonomous reasoning as an account of the rational justification of normative judgements. Autonomy is defined as the balancing of competing normative arguments, all of which are valid and applicable in a situation of conflict. Normative arguments are understood as demands presented and balanced by autonomous agents. Normative judgements resulting from the balancing of normative arguments propose certain norms as definitively valid; that is, as norms that ought to be accepted as the result of the balancing and, hence, ought to be applied and followed. They ascribe normative validity as an expression of autonomous choice, which is, on the one hand, free, but, on the other hand, must be presented as required by the prevailing argument.