Papers by David Spiegelman
Since the birth of nudge theory, there has been an ongoing debate over whether the use of nudging... more Since the birth of nudge theory, there has been an ongoing debate over whether the use of nudging should be seen as an ethical way of attempting to change behaviors. Part of this debate stems from the fact that nudging is often seen as a form of paternalism, and paternalism is in itself a highly debatable topic, and many see paternalism as a threat to individual liberty, autonomy, and freedom (Hausman and Welch, 2010, p 127-128). However, I will not discuss nudging in terms of paternalism, as a thorough report on paternalism would leave very little room for applicable suggestions for the case at hand. This case is concerning the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, where vegetarian options are offered in order to help in the transition to a less wasteful and more sustainable society (Voorberg et al., 2020, p 2). However, the Future Food Lab is faced with a lack of consumers, and several researchers (Bosshard and Cannon, Dekker et al., Voet et al., Voorberg et al.)have suggested that nudging can be an effective means in getting more people to consume from the Future Food Lab. Before any of these interventions are implemented, they ought to be examined to analyze and determine how ethically justifiable they are.
In order to address this case, first I will define what nudging is. Then, I will provide an overview of the arguments made for and against the use of nudge theory. Next, I will shift to focus more on manipulation and why it is problematic, before examining the features of manipulation that must be avoided to ensure nudging is conducted ethically. After that, I will differentiate between different types of nudging, in order to better highlight which types of nudges are acceptable, and which are inherently unethical. I will argue that only transparent type 2 nudges, that have proself or pro-social aims, ought to be considered ethically justified. Finally, I will apply my conclusions to the case of the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, in order to clarify how these findings can be practically applied to real life scenarios, and provide a framework to help managers and policymakers determine whether a proposed nudge should be seen as ethically justifiable or not
Since the birth of nudge theory, there has been an ongoing debate over whether the use of nudging... more Since the birth of nudge theory, there has been an ongoing debate over whether the use of nudging should be seen as an ethical way of attempting to change behaviors. Part of this debate stems from the fact that nudging is often seen as a form of paternalism, and paternalism is in itself a highly debatable topic, and many see paternalism as a threat to individual liberty, autonomy,
and freedom (Hausman and Welch, 2010, p 127-128). However, I will not discuss nudging in terms of paternalism, as a thorough report on paternalism would leave very little room for applicable suggestions for the case at hand. This case is concerning the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, where vegetarian options are offered in order to help in the transition to a less wasteful and more sustainable society (Voorberg et al., 2020, p 2). However, the Future Food Lab is faced with a lack of consumers, and several researchers (Bosshard and Cannon, Dekker et al., Voet et al., Voorberg et al.)have suggested that nudging can be an effective means in getting more people to consume from the Future Food Lab. Before any of these interventions are implemented, they ought to be examined to analyze and determine how ethically justifiable they are.
In order to address this case, first I will define what nudging is. Then, I will provide an overview of the arguments made for and against the use of nudge theory. Next, I will shift to focus more on manipulation and why it is problematic, before examining the features of manipulation that must be avoided to ensure nudging is conducted ethically. After that, I will differentiate between different types of nudging, in order to better highlight which types of nudges are acceptable, and which are inherently unethical. I will argue that only transparent type 2 nudges, that have proself or pro-social aims, ought to be considered ethically justified. Finally, I will apply my conclusions to the case of the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, in order to clarify how these findings can be practically applied to real life scenarios, and provide a framework to help managers and policymakers determine whether a proposed nudge should be seen as ethically justifiable or not
I address the issue of sportswashing from the perspective of supporters, who wish to maintain an ... more I address the issue of sportswashing from the perspective of supporters, who wish to maintain an ethical relationship with football, even in cases where the football in question has become directly involved with sportswashers. More specifically, I ask: in cases where a sportswasher has become directly involved in the football, in what ways (if any) would it be morally permissible for football fans to continue partaking in the joys of football?
Sportswashing is a process that occurs when an agent strategically uses their involvement in sport - usually by means of hosting a sporting event or owning a club - to cleanse a morally tainted reputation and change the public perception, rather than addressing the moral problems that gave them such a reputation (Fruh et al., 2022). Although the severest moral wrongdoings are usually the background injustices that the sportswasher is hoping to distract away from, to minimize, or to normalize, I focus on the specific wrongs of sportswashing: that it corrupts footballing institutions, communities, and identities, and threatens to make participants complicit in the sportswasher's moral wrongdoings.
I argue that supporters who see themselves as moral supporters can simultaneously participate in the typical activities of fandom, without being deemed complicit in the background injustices of the sportswasher. However, to be able to say that a supporter is participating ethically in the football in cases directly linked to sportswashing, there are certain conditions that must be met. If the conditions are satisfied, we can reasonably say that the supporter is engaged in fandom critically and has renovated her participation with football in a way that is morally permissible.
Uploads
Papers by David Spiegelman
In order to address this case, first I will define what nudging is. Then, I will provide an overview of the arguments made for and against the use of nudge theory. Next, I will shift to focus more on manipulation and why it is problematic, before examining the features of manipulation that must be avoided to ensure nudging is conducted ethically. After that, I will differentiate between different types of nudging, in order to better highlight which types of nudges are acceptable, and which are inherently unethical. I will argue that only transparent type 2 nudges, that have proself or pro-social aims, ought to be considered ethically justified. Finally, I will apply my conclusions to the case of the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, in order to clarify how these findings can be practically applied to real life scenarios, and provide a framework to help managers and policymakers determine whether a proposed nudge should be seen as ethically justifiable or not
and freedom (Hausman and Welch, 2010, p 127-128). However, I will not discuss nudging in terms of paternalism, as a thorough report on paternalism would leave very little room for applicable suggestions for the case at hand. This case is concerning the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, where vegetarian options are offered in order to help in the transition to a less wasteful and more sustainable society (Voorberg et al., 2020, p 2). However, the Future Food Lab is faced with a lack of consumers, and several researchers (Bosshard and Cannon, Dekker et al., Voet et al., Voorberg et al.)have suggested that nudging can be an effective means in getting more people to consume from the Future Food Lab. Before any of these interventions are implemented, they ought to be examined to analyze and determine how ethically justifiable they are.
In order to address this case, first I will define what nudging is. Then, I will provide an overview of the arguments made for and against the use of nudge theory. Next, I will shift to focus more on manipulation and why it is problematic, before examining the features of manipulation that must be avoided to ensure nudging is conducted ethically. After that, I will differentiate between different types of nudging, in order to better highlight which types of nudges are acceptable, and which are inherently unethical. I will argue that only transparent type 2 nudges, that have proself or pro-social aims, ought to be considered ethically justified. Finally, I will apply my conclusions to the case of the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, in order to clarify how these findings can be practically applied to real life scenarios, and provide a framework to help managers and policymakers determine whether a proposed nudge should be seen as ethically justifiable or not
Sportswashing is a process that occurs when an agent strategically uses their involvement in sport - usually by means of hosting a sporting event or owning a club - to cleanse a morally tainted reputation and change the public perception, rather than addressing the moral problems that gave them such a reputation (Fruh et al., 2022). Although the severest moral wrongdoings are usually the background injustices that the sportswasher is hoping to distract away from, to minimize, or to normalize, I focus on the specific wrongs of sportswashing: that it corrupts footballing institutions, communities, and identities, and threatens to make participants complicit in the sportswasher's moral wrongdoings.
I argue that supporters who see themselves as moral supporters can simultaneously participate in the typical activities of fandom, without being deemed complicit in the background injustices of the sportswasher. However, to be able to say that a supporter is participating ethically in the football in cases directly linked to sportswashing, there are certain conditions that must be met. If the conditions are satisfied, we can reasonably say that the supporter is engaged in fandom critically and has renovated her participation with football in a way that is morally permissible.
In order to address this case, first I will define what nudging is. Then, I will provide an overview of the arguments made for and against the use of nudge theory. Next, I will shift to focus more on manipulation and why it is problematic, before examining the features of manipulation that must be avoided to ensure nudging is conducted ethically. After that, I will differentiate between different types of nudging, in order to better highlight which types of nudges are acceptable, and which are inherently unethical. I will argue that only transparent type 2 nudges, that have proself or pro-social aims, ought to be considered ethically justified. Finally, I will apply my conclusions to the case of the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, in order to clarify how these findings can be practically applied to real life scenarios, and provide a framework to help managers and policymakers determine whether a proposed nudge should be seen as ethically justifiable or not
and freedom (Hausman and Welch, 2010, p 127-128). However, I will not discuss nudging in terms of paternalism, as a thorough report on paternalism would leave very little room for applicable suggestions for the case at hand. This case is concerning the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, where vegetarian options are offered in order to help in the transition to a less wasteful and more sustainable society (Voorberg et al., 2020, p 2). However, the Future Food Lab is faced with a lack of consumers, and several researchers (Bosshard and Cannon, Dekker et al., Voet et al., Voorberg et al.)have suggested that nudging can be an effective means in getting more people to consume from the Future Food Lab. Before any of these interventions are implemented, they ought to be examined to analyze and determine how ethically justifiable they are.
In order to address this case, first I will define what nudging is. Then, I will provide an overview of the arguments made for and against the use of nudge theory. Next, I will shift to focus more on manipulation and why it is problematic, before examining the features of manipulation that must be avoided to ensure nudging is conducted ethically. After that, I will differentiate between different types of nudging, in order to better highlight which types of nudges are acceptable, and which are inherently unethical. I will argue that only transparent type 2 nudges, that have proself or pro-social aims, ought to be considered ethically justified. Finally, I will apply my conclusions to the case of the Future Food Lab at the Utrecht University, in order to clarify how these findings can be practically applied to real life scenarios, and provide a framework to help managers and policymakers determine whether a proposed nudge should be seen as ethically justifiable or not
Sportswashing is a process that occurs when an agent strategically uses their involvement in sport - usually by means of hosting a sporting event or owning a club - to cleanse a morally tainted reputation and change the public perception, rather than addressing the moral problems that gave them such a reputation (Fruh et al., 2022). Although the severest moral wrongdoings are usually the background injustices that the sportswasher is hoping to distract away from, to minimize, or to normalize, I focus on the specific wrongs of sportswashing: that it corrupts footballing institutions, communities, and identities, and threatens to make participants complicit in the sportswasher's moral wrongdoings.
I argue that supporters who see themselves as moral supporters can simultaneously participate in the typical activities of fandom, without being deemed complicit in the background injustices of the sportswasher. However, to be able to say that a supporter is participating ethically in the football in cases directly linked to sportswashing, there are certain conditions that must be met. If the conditions are satisfied, we can reasonably say that the supporter is engaged in fandom critically and has renovated her participation with football in a way that is morally permissible.