"It is clear however that this view entails a complete denial of other persons’ moral agency. They are no longer viewed as autonomous moral agents who are able to subject their behavior to social and moral rules even if that goes against their desires or instinctive proclivities, but as heteronomous creatures whose choices are causally determined by factors outside their control."
This seems to me to be at false dichotomy..
The evidence seems quite convincing that human agents are neither purely autonomous nor purely heteronomous. Instead, agents are indeed able to make choices about behaviour - but that this ability (and often the choices themselves) are also conditioned by factors outside their control.
If we allow that there are good reasons to limit the actions of others - for example in cases of direct harms - then it would follow thereby that we cannot simply rule out (on the basis of some imagined pure autonomy) limitations in cases of indirect harms.
"It is clear however that this view entails a complete denial of other persons’ moral agency. They are no longer viewed as autonomous moral agents who are able to subject their behavior to social and moral rules even if that goes against their desires or instinctive proclivities, but as heteronomous creatures whose choices are causally determined by factors outside their control."
This seems to me to be at false dichotomy..
The evidence seems quite convincing that human agents are neither purely autonomous nor purely heteronomous. Instead, agents are indeed able to make choices about behaviour - but that this ability (and often the choices themselves) are also conditioned by factors outside their control.
If we allow that there are good reasons to limit the actions of others - for example in cases of direct harms - then it would follow thereby that we cannot simply rule out (on the basis of some imagined pure autonomy) limitations in cases of indirect harms.