Re: [armchair] libertarian paternalism
Lest we forget: The road to hell is paved with good intentions I am uncomfortable with and in fact disagree with much of Thaler's arguments in his article "Libertarian Paternalism". However, I will try to limit my response to your question. It seems, to paraphrase, you are asking if it is moral to manipulate human foibles to achieve a given end because you know what is best. I would argue that it is immoral to manipulate or attempt to manipulate people to do what the planner thinks is best for them. In the situations listed, there may not be a practical alternative to providing a menu that is chosen by the planner. As James Wells points out, it is a question of whether or not there is a morally superior way of listing the options, I would argue there is, simply do not try to covertly manipulate the choices. If the planner believes there is a best choice, list it first with the disclaimer that based on the information available this may be, in the planner's opinion, the best choice for most people but that individuals should decide for themselves. While there may still be a minor element of manipulation it is overt and the responsibility is now back on the individual, its correct place. A larger question for Thaler is where did he find all those omniscient planners who, unlike individuals, have complete information, unlimited cognitive abilities and absolute willpower. Are not planners actually individuals who suffer from the same foibles we all have? Thaler is correct in that there are situations in which choices must be made, a menu selected, however the alternative to paternalism is providing complete information and the option chose none of the above or not placing individuals in a position were they are forced make a decision. That is, I would argue it is wrong to automatically enroll people, as Thaler argues, in a 401(k) plan in which the employee is forced to contribute or opt out. Thaler is arguable wrong when he states, " the presumption that an individual's choice should be free from interference is usually based on the assumption that people do a good job of making choices, or at least that they do a far better job than third parties could do." I argue Individuals should be free from interference in making choices because they have the right and responsibility to do so as well as enjoy/suffer the consequences of their good/bad decisions. I think you will find few planners willing to take full responsibilities for their incorrect choices, particularly in the 401(k) arena. That is not to say that some individuals do not try to avoid their responsibilities. The point is the rights and responsibilities belong to the individual, that some individuals make bad decisions by itself does not justify paternalism of any kind. In closing Thaler is probably right that a certain amount of paternalism is unavoidable, but we should not justify it rather we should strive minimize it and to provide individuals with better information and critical thinking/decision making skills. I generally dislike slippery slope arguments, but does not paternalism foster more paternalism? My concern and fear is that once we accept the proposition that planners know best we soon will find more and more situations in which it is "ethical and moral". Do we want to foster a society that always takes the default position, is the ultimate freedom not having to make any choices? I certainly hope not! - Original Message - From: "Edi Grgeta" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Sent: Thursday, December 23, 2004 5:58 PM Subject: [armchair] libertarian paternalism Armchirees, I am trying to decide whether it is moral for a designer to impose his benevolent will through menu design by exploiting imperfections in how people choose. For example, if the designer thinks that option B is best, and people presented with options ABC (in that order) choose A, but presented with options BAC (in that order) choose B, then is it moral to select the options order BAC rather than ABC or a random menu? No freedom is lost. This differs from a benevolent dictatorship because it does not have jailers enforcing anything, although the fact that a choice has to be made can be a result of a larger dictatorship. One situation where this question comes up is in designing 401k plans. The inspiration for this was Thaler + Sunstein "Libertarian Paternalism" (AER, May 2003, mentioned on armchair before). They claim it is moral. I have worked with Thaler and am currently looking for quotes on the importance of (freedom of) choice for a book on the same topic (do you have any to share?) Thanks Edi Grgeta [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-213-9072
libertarian paternalism again
Thanks for your replies on the morality of menu design. Two replies found no morally questionable aspects of menu design, and one person thought that the action can be immoral if "one way of listing the options is morally superior to another" but that way is not chosen. I was hoping for more dissenting opinions. My thinking of the possibility of immorality hinges on the designer's choosing the menu design to steer choice to what he thinks is best for the people doing the choosing. If there is no best option for everyone, and only the person choosing can say what is best for him (true in many situtions), then what the designer thinks is best is just his preference on what others should be doing. Having such a preference and acting on it may be immoral. I don't know whether it is immoral, but if were made the designer, I would not hesitate to put my best intentions to work on the menu. The vague funny feeling would not be strong enough to stop me, I think. Thanks and Happy New Year! Edi Grgeta [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-213-9072
Re: libertarian paternalism
--- Edi Grgeta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am trying to decide whether it is moral for a designer to impose his > benevolent will through menu design by exploiting imperfections in how > people choose. It is not an imposition, because the user is not forced to choose one of the options, since another option is to exit the menu. > For example, if the designer thinks that option B is best, and people > presented with options ABC (in that order) choose A, but presented with > options BAC (in that order) choose B, then is it moral to select the > options order BAC rather than ABC or a random menu? No freedom is lost. It is not immoral, since there is no coercion. > One situation where this question comes up is in designing 401k plans. What exactly is the moral issue? Fred Foldvary
Re: libertarian paternalism
Edi, Perhaps start with a primitive conception of what makes something immoral. An action can't be immoral unless (1) there is some alternative course of action and (2) that alternative course of action is morally superior. Sure, there's more to morality than this, but these two at least provide a starting point and you've already covered the issue of use of force. Is there an alternative way of listing the options? Sure. Is one of the alternative listings morally superior? Maybe. If there is a morally superior way of listing the available options, then not to use it is, in my judgement, immoral. What the menu maker can't be faulted for (and this seems to be where you are thinking there is a problem) is that this influence over the menu readers exists, because there is no alternative in which such influence wouldn't be present. Even a random menu will still influence the decisions of the menu users, not to mention that providing a randomized menu will likely cost more and the menu users will be forced to bear those costs. Once the menu maker is aware that such an influence is present, this boils down to a question of whether or not one way of listing the options is morally superior to another. James Edi Grgeta wrote: Armchirees, I am trying to decide whether it is moral for a designer to impose his benevolent will through menu design by exploiting imperfections in how people choose. For example, if the designer thinks that option B is best, and people presented with options ABC (in that order) choose A, but presented with options BAC (in that order) choose B, then is it moral to select the options order BAC rather than ABC or a random menu? No freedom is lost. This differs from a benevolent dictatorship because it does not have jailers enforcing anything, although the fact that a choice has to be made can be a result of a larger dictatorship. One situation where this question comes up is in designing 401k plans. The inspiration for this was Thaler + Sunstein "Libertarian Paternalism" (AER, May 2003, mentioned on armchair before). They claim it is moral. I have worked with Thaler and am currently looking for quotes on the importance of (freedom of) choice for a book on the same topic (do you have any to share?) Thanks Edi Grgeta [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-213-9072
libertarian paternalism
Armchirees, I am trying to decide whether it is moral for a designer to impose his benevolent will through menu design by exploiting imperfections in how people choose. For example, if the designer thinks that option B is best, and people presented with options ABC (in that order) choose A, but presented with options BAC (in that order) choose B, then is it moral to select the options order BAC rather than ABC or a random menu? No freedom is lost. This differs from a benevolent dictatorship because it does not have jailers enforcing anything, although the fact that a choice has to be made can be a result of a larger dictatorship. One situation where this question comes up is in designing 401k plans. The inspiration for this was Thaler + Sunstein "Libertarian Paternalism" (AER, May 2003, mentioned on armchair before). They claim it is moral. I have worked with Thaler and am currently looking for quotes on the importance of (freedom of) choice for a book on the same topic (do you have any to share?) Thanks Edi Grgeta [EMAIL PROTECTED] 773-213-9072
