Why Nudge? by Cass R. Sunstein

Author:Cass R. Sunstein
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Yale University Press
Published: 2014-02-27T16:00:00+00:00

Welfare Revisited

These arguments are more than plausible, but we should begin by acknowledging that to some people, the arguments just sketched will fall on deaf ears. They will seem puzzling, question-begging, even perverse.

If we focus on welfare, we have to return to the initial question, which is what it means for lives to go well. Mill was both an individualist and a utilitarian, and he focused on increasing people’s utility and on allowing them to go their own way. If that is our focus, and if we understand utility in a certain way, the arguments just given might well draw us directly to the Harm Principle (subject to serious empirical challenges, which should by now be evident and which are taken up in more detail below). Thus Mill urged that people ought to ask themselves, “What do I prefer?” or, “What would suit my character and disposition?” or, “What would allow the best and highest in me to have fair play, and enable it to grow and thrive?”20 But if we have a different understanding, and if we believe that in order to go well, lives must take a particular form, the objections to paternalism will seem badly confused and perhaps unintelligible. Indeed, ends paternalism, no less than means paternalism, will seem legitimate, and not much undermined by the antipaternalist arguments made thus far.

Suppose, for example, that we are not focused on utility and that we start with a theological view that emphasizes obedience to God’s commands and that does not put a high premium on freedom of choice. If so, what some people deplore as paternalism will seem to others the natural and appropriate way to ensure that people’s lives go well. In a highly illuminating book, Jonathan Haidt emphasizes the existence of plural and diverse foundations for people’s moral commitments.21 The antipaternalist view depends on accepting some of those commitments and rejecting others.

To be more specific: For those who begin with a commitment to purity, the welfarist objections will have little force. Suppose we think that for a life to be pure and therefore good, people must refrain from engaging in certain activities, including gambling, smoking, drinking, and overeating, and that other activities, such as sex, should occur only subject to certain restrictions. If a life goes well if and only if it is pure (in the relevant sense), then hard paternalism might seem the right course, and the antipaternalist arguments will face an obvious (and devastating) problem.

For those arguments to get off the ground, we have to start with what some will find contentious views, to the effect that human lives can go well in many different ways, and that people are generally the best judges of how to make their own lives go well. That (broadly Millian) perspective will in turn help fuel the belief that individuals are usually the best judges of what it means for their lives to go well.22 In my view, there is a great deal to be said for that belief (subject to empirical reservations), but it must be acknowledged that many others are doubtful.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.