Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Should ‘nudge’ be salvaged?
  1. Alan Wertheimer
  1. Correspondence to Dr Alan Wertheimer, Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD 02892, USA; wertheimera{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Policy makers are understandably interested—for both political and moral reasons—in following Thaler and Sunstein's recommendation to use ‘choice architecture’ (as in Cafeteria ), or other ‘nudges’, to promote desirable behaviour in ways that are allegedly compatible with personal freedom.1 Yashar Saghai's intricate analysis shows that simply maintaining the target's choice-set is insufficient to preserve the target's freedom when the nudge bypasses the target's deliberative capacities—as it is specifically designed to do.2 In his friendly amendment to Thaler and Sunstein's project, Saghai advances a more robust account of nudges in which fewer policies would count as nudges, but those that do count as nudges would be less troublesome. In this commentary, I briefly discuss several issues raised by Saghai's project, some of which go beyond the topic of nudges.

  • How important is definitional salvaging? If a ‘substantially controlling’ influence were more efficacious in promoting healthy behaviours, we would have a trade-off between the efficacy of a policy and its compatibility with freedom. Saghai states that an influence can be morally permissible even if it is ‘substantially controlling’ and, therefore, does not qualify as a nudge. So even on Saghai's definitional project it is not clear how much work it does in distinguishing the morally permissible from the morally impermissible.

  • The …

View Full Text


  • Contributors AW is the sole author.

  • Disclaimer The views expressed are the author’s own. They do not reflect any position or policy of the National Institutes of Health, US Public Health Service, or Department of Health and Human Services.

  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles

Other content recommended for you