Cargando…

The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too

Nudges are often defended on the basis that they merely substitute existing influences on choice with other influences that are similar in kind; they introduce no new kind of influence into the choice situation. I motivate the view that, if this defence succeeds in establishing the moral innocuousne...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Douglas, Thomas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9828860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36636526
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/japp.12568
_version_ 1784867355616083968
author Douglas, Thomas
author_facet Douglas, Thomas
author_sort Douglas, Thomas
collection PubMed
description Nudges are often defended on the basis that they merely substitute existing influences on choice with other influences that are similar in kind; they introduce no new kind of influence into the choice situation. I motivate the view that, if this defence succeeds in establishing the moral innocuousness of typical nudges, it also establishes the moral innocuousness of an intuitively wrongful neurochemical intervention. I then consider two attempts to rebut this view and argue that both fail. I end by spelling out four stances that the proponent of the defence might adopt in response to my argument.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9828860
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Blackwell Publishing Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-98288602023-01-10 The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too Douglas, Thomas J Appl Philos Original Articles Nudges are often defended on the basis that they merely substitute existing influences on choice with other influences that are similar in kind; they introduce no new kind of influence into the choice situation. I motivate the view that, if this defence succeeds in establishing the moral innocuousness of typical nudges, it also establishes the moral innocuousness of an intuitively wrongful neurochemical intervention. I then consider two attempts to rebut this view and argue that both fail. I end by spelling out four stances that the proponent of the defence might adopt in response to my argument. Blackwell Publishing Ltd 2022-02-14 2022-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9828860/ /pubmed/36636526 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/japp.12568 Text en © 2022 The Author. Journal of Applied Philosophy published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society for Applied Philosophy https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Douglas, Thomas
The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too
title The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too
title_full The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too
title_fullStr The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too
title_full_unstemmed The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too
title_short The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too
title_sort mere substitution defence of nudging works for neurointerventions too
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9828860/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36636526
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/japp.12568
work_keys_str_mv AT douglasthomas themeresubstitutiondefenceofnudgingworksforneurointerventionstoo
AT douglasthomas meresubstitutiondefenceofnudgingworksforneurointerventionstoo