Most moral objections to nudging–the practice of altering choice environments in order to subconsciously steer behavior–have been grounded in the value of personal autonomy. The autonomy of the nudged are claimed to be undermined because the control individuals have over their evaluations, deliberations and decision-making is effectively reduced, if not fully bypassed. More so, nudging seems autonomy-threatening because the architects look to supplant the wills of their targets with their own.
When nudging was first discussed by its main proponents Thaler and Sunstein in their book Nudge in 2008, it was proposed as an innovative supplement to government policy-making. In response, most of the autonomy-related objections focused on the paternalism of governments carrying out the nudging. Surprisingly, few have paid much attention to similar forms of influences in the market setting–behavioral techniques used in advertising, pricing, and other market interactions. I claim the standard autonomy-based objections against nudging raise more worries about current market practices than emerging and prospective policy practices. (more…)
“Like all major changes to democratic accountability, it happened with a minimum of fuss. By the time we heard about it, it was already over.”
Photo: Illustration by Bill Butcher
This week the government announced that the Behavioural Insights Team (BIT), commonly referred to as the ‘nudge unit’, has been ‘spun out’ of Whitehall into a mutual joint venture. The new “social purpose company” is now owned, in roughly equal shares, by BIT employees, the government, and Nesta (an independent charity established by the previous government using £250 million of National Lottery money). The privatisation deal has been described as “one of the biggest experiments in British public sector reform” (Financial Times), on account of this being the first time that privatisation has reached beyond public services and utilities to include an actual government policy team. My intuition, like many other people’s I would imagine, is that this marks a dangerous new precedent in the rise of private power over the public. But what precisely is it that is doing the work for this intuition?
Failing to do what we really, really want seems all-too familiar in everyday life. You might want to lead a healthier lifestyle or aspire to a career in a girl band but turn out to be too sluggish to go for a run or practice your singing and dancing skills. If you really are committed to those aims, these are clear instances where you fail to satisfy your ‘true preferences’.
Laziness and akrasia
So, what is it that you really, really want? And why does it matter whether or not others can know your deepest desires? In our new article in the Journal of Applied Philosophy, we argue why some of your preferences are truer than others and why policy-makers can and should steer you in the direction of these preferences by nudging you when you veer off course.
Image from DHE-Art
True preferences, we contend, are real and should be taken seriously, by ourselves, by philosophers and by policy-makers. They are more fundamental and stable than our more superficial, impulsive and flimsy preferences. They also have special status and carry special normative weight. We care about them; it really matters to us whether or not we succeed in realizing what we set out to do, whether this is akin to a New Year’s resolution or something more vital to our central life plans.
All of this might sound rather obvious. Who would deny this? Oddly enough, more than a few (behavioral) economists do. In our article, we discuss and respond to three types of objections that they raise against true preferences. First, true preferences have been claimed not to exist. Even when preferences are incoherent, the objection goes, there is no indication as to why some preferences might be meaningfully “truer” than others.
And even if there are true preferences, a second objection states, they remain unknowable to others, and particularly to meddlesome governments. Of the many, changing and often incoherent preferences, how can one possibly single out those that are somehow true or special? How can an outsider know whether you suffer from procrastination or simply prefer not to chase after a life of fame?
Third, true preferences might simply lack normative weight and the fact that someone is veering of course might not justify governmental interference. Governments then, have no business promoting true preferences. Surely, policy-makers shouldn’t make it their business to help you become the next Mel B or Posh Spice, even if that is your deepest desire.
Image from Rawpixel.com
True preferences
In the article, we attend to these objections. True preferences, we show, are quite essential to how we understand core concepts of moral philosophy, like autonomy and authenticity. We point to several plausible ways of understanding true preferences developed by philosophers such as Harry Frankfurt (higher-order preferences), Bernard Williams (authentic preferences), Tyler DesRoches (values-based preferences) and Mark Fabian and Malte Dold (agentic preferences). All of these understandings establish a connection between true preferences and the core concepts of moral philosophy.
All of these philosophers claim that some of our preferences are (more) special (than other preferences), as they express (more) closely who we are. They make up the kind of person we consider ourselves to be or that we aspire to become. Those who deny that true preferences exist or have special normative weight, we argue, undermine our ability to make sense of autonomy and authenticity. When people fail to act on their commitments, they are not leading the life they want to live. We need a notion of ‘true preferences’ to capture the fundamental thought that some of our preferences are more ‘ours’ and that others are more ‘alien’ to us.
Policy implications
So what does this mean for policy-makers? Knowing what you really, really want might be nice for yourself, your partner and your friends but should politicians and policy-makers be in the business of figuring out your deepest desires? In the article, we defend the case for ‘paternalistic nudges’ that promote true preferences. Policy-makers, in our view, can and should nudge citizens when they predictably veer off course and fail to satisfy their own true preferences.
So far, nudge advocates have mostly assumed what people’s true preferences might be. This has been heavily criticized as an objectionable kind of paternalism because it supposedly ends up with policy-makers imposing their values on citizens. Instead of really catering to people’s true preferences, policy-makers will nudge citizens in directions that the policy-makers regard as beneficial, be it health, wealth, or some other aspect of wellbeing. Say, people can be nudged into doing more regular check-ups, eat healthier food, or drive safely, all things that they surely prefer…or do they? How can policy-makers hope to find this out? Economists are all too keen to point out knowledge problems in government operations.
And while they make some important points, the knowledge problem for true preferences represents a challenge to be overcome, not a cause for defeatism. We are not helpless in its wake. It is perfectly possible to identify scenarios in which people predictably form false beliefs, exercise poor evaluative judgments or suffer from incompetence. We can use generalizations and statistical evidence for what contributes to a healthy and financially stable life and we can use surveys and other scientific methodologies to gauge people’s desires.
Importantly, we can do all of this while making absolutely sure that dissenters can go their separate ways. This is the advantage of nudges. They can help people get things right (when they steer them in the direction of a true preference), while preserving their freedom to resist (if they steer in the wrong direction). So, even if it turns out that you really prefer to watch rather than be a Spice Girl, you won’t be forced in either direction.
Smart cities are full of sensors and collect large amounts of data. One reason for doing so is to get real-time information about traffic flows. A next step is to steer the traffic in a way that contributes to the realisation of values such as safety and sustainability. Think of steering cars around schools to improve the safety of children, or of keeping certain areas car-free to improve air quality. Is it legitimate for cities to nudge their citizens to make moral choices when participating in traffic? Would a system that limits a person’s options for the sake of improving quality of life in the city come at the cost of restricting that person’s autonomy? In a transdisciplinary research project, we (i.e., members of the ESDiT programme and the Responsible Sensing Lab) explored how a navigation app that suggests routes based on shared values, would affect users’ experiences of autonomy. We did so by letting people try out speculative prototypes of such an app on a mobile phone and ask them questions about how they experienced different features of the app. During several interviews and a focus group, we gained insights about the conditions under which people find such an app acceptable and about the features that increase or decrease their feeling of autonomy.
This guest post is written by Ben Sachs-Cobbe. Ben has recently published a book entitled Contractarianism, Role Obligations, and Political Morality exploring the connection between foundational questions in political philosophy and important issues in public policy, including the political and legal status of sentient animals.
Factory farms inflict suffering on the animals they produce. At a young age animals are torn away from their mothers and mutilated to prevent them hurting themselves and others; they’re then kept in squalid conditions with their movement and access to the outdoors restricted while they grow at a dangerously fast rate; before they’re finally killed by a machine after a mercifully brief life. Estimates of the number of farmed animals produced for food worldwide each year range from 50-70 billion (not including fish), with anything from two-thirds to 90% of those being factory farmed. This is misery on an almost incomprehensible scale. (more…)
Elisa Piras’s post, A justice-inspired reading of the COP26 discursive arena, which sketches how a high-level climate summit might provide a space for the voices of diverse groups of citizens to articulate a common strategy to tackle climate change.
Temi Ogunye’s post, Is disruptive climate activism morally controversial?, which challenges objections to disruptive activism grounded on worries about law-breaking, inconveniencing others, and counter-productivity.
Jelena Belic & Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh’s guest post, Rethinking Human Rights in the Context of Climate Change, which draws reflections from their conference on transforming human rights law for it to serve purpose protecting against the harms of climate change.
Peter Dietsch’s post, Allowing fossil-fuel advertising is harmful and irresponsible, which argues for a ban on advertising fossil-fuel intensive activity, such as gas-powered cars, air travel, and boat cruises, and financial investment in fossil-fuel intensive industries.
Stay tuned for even more on this topic in our 2022-23 season!
***
Justice Everywhere will return in full swing on 1st September with fresh weekly posts by our cooperative of regular authors (published on Mondays), in addition to our Journal of Applied Philosophy series (published on Thursdays). If you have a suggestion for a topic or would like to contribute a guest post on a topical subject in political philosophy (broadly construed), please feel free to get in touch with us at justice.everywhere.blog@gmail.com.
It’s been over a decade since behavioral insights have been incorporated into policy making through so-called nudge units. Nudge proponents have suggested that by altering choice environments in order to steer the decision-making of individuals, by triggering their automatic psychological processes, we can do much to improve their wellbeing, or promote important pro-social goals. For instance, we can use subtle visual cues to make consumers eat healthier, we can use careful wording to minimize bad financial choices, or we can make sure through default effects that donated organs are never in short supply.
Anthropogenic climate change is a global concern. However, that climate change concerns all of us does not mean that it would concern all of us equally. Income is the primary correlate of carbon footprint whether analysed on a national or individual level. The richest half of the world’s countries (in GDP) emit 86% of global CO2 emissions. The difference is even starker when analysed on an individual level: income level is also the strongest correlate with citizen CO2 footprint (2016 data from the Global Carbon Project). The effect of attempts to decrease carbon footprint in wealthy countries by producing climate-friendly consumer goods, energy, and transport options have had limited effect – in part because these only transform a small part of citizens’ total consumption behaviour, and in part because reductions are needed, primarily, in the amount of consumption by high-income citizens rather than in the specific goods being consumed. (more…)
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed serious vulnerabilities in healthcare supply chains in many countries, including the UK. Shortages in protective equipment are leading to staffing problems in many hospitals. If these problems aren’t soon resolved they could jeopardise the operations of the entire health system. The same threat looms over the care sector. And even if the NHS remains well-enough staffed to sustain its operations, ventilator shortages may mean that critically ill patients don’t have access to essential life-saving treatments at the peak of the pandemic. And stocks of the chemical supplies needed in order to produce test kits, and vaccines – if and when one is viable – are running short as well.
Countries should try to take proactive measures to pre-emptively mitigate the harm done by future pandemics by disaster-proofing their healthcare supply chains. The probability of another pandemic in the foreseeable future that’s as bad as or worse than COVID-19 may be small. But the probability-weighted downsides of this possible outcome are great enough that they warrant action in strengthening supply chains. This is just one action that’s warranted among others. The question I want to home in on here is how we can disaster-proof supply chains without it being so expensive as to (a) carry prohibitive op-portunity costs, or (b) become politically untenable once the galvanised mood around COVID-19 subsides. (more…)
This must be one of the most animated debates amongst feminists: how to find the best remedial policies for women who are disadvantaged because they serve as main care-givers for their children, elderly parents, sick relatives or friends. They are disadvantaged in many ways. Some are economic: lower lifetime earnings and fewer work-related benefits compared to people without care commitments – hence more dependency on spouses. Others are social: part-time workers take a hit in status, stay-at-home mums even more so. Finally, there are the relational and psychological disadvantages: women who are economically dependent on their partners have less negotiating power than their partners, and many face tremendous difficulties when they want to leave abusive relationships.
The gendered division of labour – women’s assignment to the hands-on care that we all need at different periods of our lives – explains, to a large extent, not only the gender pay gap but also the feminisation of poverty and the private domination to which many women are subjected. No surprise, then, that feminists have two distinct aims: to protect women from the risks of being a care-giver, and also to do away with the gendered division of labour, which is a main source of the problem. I am one of these feminists; I would like to see women and men equally engaged in the labour market, and looking after anybody who needs care.
But I’m also adamant that we should pursue these two aims in the right order: we should give priority to protecting women from the worst consequences of the gendered division of labour over the abolition of the gendered division of labour itself. Moreover, we should be aware of the unavoidable tension between the two aims, and keep this in mind when advocating for particular gender policies. (more…)
About us
This blog explores issues of justice, morality, and ethics in all areas of public, political, social, economic, and personal life. It is run by a cooperative of political theorists and philosophers and in collaboration with the Journal of Applied Philosophy.
