Post Your Answer
4 months ago in Legal Theory By Raghu
What’s the case for presuming people are competent?
In my research on institutional ethics, I keep encountering this principle presume competence but it's often asserted without rigorous justification. I want to understand whether this is primarily a Kantian respect-for-persons argument, a utilitarian efficiency claim, or something else entirely. I need the actual case so I can defend or critique it properly in my work.
All Answers (1 Answers In All)
By Krirthi Answered 1 month ago
The strongest argument is autonomy and dignity. Presuming competence treats people as rights-holders, not subjects. It prevents discrimination based on diagnosis or disability. Crucially, competence isn't a global trait someone might lack capacity for complex financial decisions but still make valid choices about their own care. The presumption creates space for supported decision-making, where we help people exercise their autonomy rather than override it. It's not just kind; it's legally and ethically rigorous
Reply to Krirthi
Related Questions