Article Text
PDF
Statistics from Altmetric.com
I am to grateful to Geoff Keeling for his perceptive response1 to my paper.2 In this brief reply, I will argue that he does not succeed in his goal of showing that nudges to reason do not respect autonomy. At most, he establishes only that such nudges may threaten autonomy when used in certain ways and in certain circumstances. As I will show, this is not a conclusion that should give us grounds for particular concerns about nudges.
Before turning to this issue, let me correct some small issues of interpretation of my paper. Keeling takes me to be committed to three descriptive claims: (1) that we have entered a post-truth era, (2) that our problem with the rational assessment of evidence is explained by or stems from the backfire effect and (3) that nudges to reason work by exploiting affective mechanisms. I am not committed to accepting any of these claims. …
Linked Articles
- Response
- Extended essay
Other content recommended for you
- Nudges in a post-truth world
- Autonomy, nudging and post-truth politics
- Forced to be free? Increasing patient autonomy by constraining it
- Formal and effective autonomy in healthcare
- Is respect for autonomy defensible?
- Salvaging the concept of nudge
- Should physicians fake diagnoses to help their patients?
- Body integrity dysphoria and moral responsibility: an interpretation of the scepticism regarding on-demand amputations
- The tension between self governance and absolute inner worth in Kant’s moral philosophy
- How should institutions help clinicians to practise greener anaesthesia: first-order and second-order responsibilities to practice sustainably