“Not causing people to make choices they will regret” is a pretty simple ethical principle.
Actually, it’s contradictory. If they actually have autonomy, then you can’t truly “cause” them to make a particular choice. So choosing to “not cause” them to make a choice is actually admitting they’re not autonomous.
Ergo, given the definition of “objectifying” in use here, you are objectifying someone merely by trying not to influence them.
If they actually have autonomy, then you can’t truly “cause” them to make a particular choice.
Are you seriously assuming incompatibilist free will? If we’ve got (roughly speaking) a deterministic universe, and no Kantian nonsense about noumena, then everybody can be caused to do things, even though they’re autonomous.
Unless you’re assuming incompatibilism in absence of free will… in which case, it seems like you should have a more basic disagreement with the objection of not treating people as though they are autonomous.
Actually, it’s contradictory. If they actually have autonomy, then you can’t truly “cause” them to make a particular choice. So choosing to “not cause” them to make a choice is actually admitting they’re not autonomous.
Ergo, given the definition of “objectifying” in use here, you are objectifying someone merely by trying not to influence them.
Are you seriously assuming incompatibilist free will? If we’ve got (roughly speaking) a deterministic universe, and no Kantian nonsense about noumena, then everybody can be caused to do things, even though they’re autonomous.
Unless you’re assuming incompatibilism in absence of free will… in which case, it seems like you should have a more basic disagreement with the objection of not treating people as though they are autonomous.
Autonomy isn’t a binary thing; neither do human beings have full knowledge of precisely what they are and aren’t in conscious control of.
False dichotomy. Autonomy isn’t absolute, nor is “causing” someone to make choices.