Comments on:Nudge paternalism and the public

policy implications of neuroeconomcisby Joel Anderson

Federica RussoPhilosophy, Louvain & Kent

The paper• Topic:

– the stances underlying public policy• Starting point

– A matter of fact: we are bad at making choices• How to address this in public policy

– Adopt a ‘paternalistic’ approach• Alternative critique:

– ‘nudge paternalism’ does not meet the concerns about the ‘autonomy gaps’

Are we given what we were promised?

• What are the implications of NE for public policy?– (in the paper) the problem is never

addressed

– Where could the NE-stuff be put in?

Let’s put some NE-stuff in the paper

In the criticisms of nudge parternalism

1. “Nudge paternalists fail to acknowledge the problems that arise when people do not understand the true grounds for their choices”.– What has NE to do?

• To better understand the grounds of people’s choices.• To tell whom? The laymen? I don’t see the point here

Let’s put some NE-stuff in the paper

2. “Nudge paternalism’s palatability is premised on downplaying importance of self-governance”.

– This seems to be a worry about self-awareness—how is neuroscience going to help with this?

Let’s put some NE-stuff in the paper

In the alternative diagnosis: autonomy gap1. Capacities for choice that are presupposed by public

policies2. Capacities that people actually have

Joel: identifying autonomy gaps is centrally a matter of what a policy, practice, or institution presuppose

OK- but I really don’t see what NE can help in understanding the presuppositions

Capacities: individual / collective level. But in either case not clear how NE can give the answer.