The Mere Substitution Defence of Nudging Works for Neurointerventions Too

Area of Science:

• Behavioral Economics
• Ethics
• Neuroscience

Background:

• Nudges are choice architecture techniques influencing decisions without restricting options.
• A common defense argues nudges merely replace existing choice influences with similar ones.
• This defense posits that nudges do not introduce novel forms of influence.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate the ethical implications of the 'substitution defense' for nudges.
• To determine if the defense of typical nudges logically extends to neurochemical interventions.
• To analyze counterarguments against this extended ethical equivalence.

Main Methods:

• Philosophical argumentation and conceptual analysis.
• Examining the logical consistency of the substitution defense.
• Critiquing existing rebuttals to the argument.

Main Results:

• The substitution defense, if successful for nudges, implies moral innocuousness for neurochemical interventions.
• Two prominent attempts to rebut this conclusion were found to be unsuccessful.
• The ethical parity between nudges and neurochemical interventions under this defense is robust.

Conclusions:

• The common defense of nudges may have unintended and ethically problematic consequences.
• Re-evaluation of nudge ethics is necessary, considering potential parallels with more intrusive interventions.
• Four distinct philosophical stances are proposed for proponents of the substitution defense.