Abstract

Nudging has been ethically assessed and criticised during the past ten years. To this day the debate has focused mainly on nudges implemented by governments (liberal paternalism). This has led to a negligence of other possible choice architects, such as private corporations. They can use nudging, for example, in order to guide the behaviour of their employees or customers. As nudges are supposed to benefit the nudgee as well as society, this article focuses on the well-being of employees and the encouragement of ethical andenvironmentally friendly decision-making in the organisations. Other kinds of corporate objectives, such as improvements in performance, are not discussed. I argue that the ethics of nudging cannot be assessed without taking into account the identity and the specific properties of the choice architect. The argument will be structured along three counter-arguments against governmental nudging, which cannot readily be transferred to companies: autonomy restrictions, paternalism and risk potential.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.