The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too

Journal of Applied Philosophy 10 (3):407-420 (2022)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
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.
No keywords specified (fix it)
Reprint years
PhilPapers/Archive ID
Upload history
First archival date: 2021-11-08
Latest version: 2 (2021-11-12)
View other versions
Added to PP

218 (#34,980)

6 months
52 (#15,039)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?