Respect for Autonomy or Promotion of Autonomy: Is the Question Which we Should Privilege, or When?

I argue that critical thinking is valuable for autonomy because it helps us to settle on optimal commitments, and that this requires policy that respects the autonomy of adults but promotes the autonomy of children. Since respecting autonomy generally requires allowing persons to make their own choices, while promoting autonomy can require getting them to engage in some activity that they would not have chosen for themselves, there is a prima facie tension between the two aims. Insofar as both are valuable, this creates problems for public policy. I argue that we can dissolve it by understanding the role of critical thinking and autonomy in well-being. On my view, respecting autonomy is important because individuals have the best epistemic access to their own esoteric, identity-conferring commitments. This renders them best placed to decide which actions will further their own well-being. However, commitments – including suboptimal commitments – can develop “behind our backs” if we do not reflect critically on them, and this can leave us less well-off than we would counterfactually have been. Nevertheless, since we cannot now become these counter-factual versions of ourselves, our autonomy as adults must be respected. However, if children think critically about their commitments from an early age, they will develop the tools to choose their commitments wisely from the start, and this will allow them to actually develop into the best version of their possible future selves. So, when children are still too young to have developed commitments, the state should enact policies aimed at promoting their autonomy. This in turn will allow them to derive maximum benefit from the policies that respect their autonomy as adults.​