Abstract
This article shows that there can never be nudging without judging. Specifically, the essay analyses the impact of the collapse of the fact/value dichotomy on rational choice and behavioural law and economics. Not only does a nudge require an ex-ante value judgment, but facts and values are almost always inextricably entangled. Thus, the real problem does not lie in “getting the facts right” (i.e. judging people as neutrally as possible), but in the so-called “facts” themselves, which already contain value judgments. In the context of rational choice and behavioural law and economics, the term ‘rational’ is at the same time used in its positive meaning (how things are) and in its normative meaning (how things ought to be). As a result, researchers in BLE engage in both positive and normative science. Instead of accepting the normative and making it explicit, however, it is often shunned by researchers. In doing so, an unscientific double standard is maintained with the explicit positive science in the fore and the implicit normative science looming in the background. As a result, the normative concept ‘rationality’ is maximized under the guise of it being a positive concept while ‘autonomy’ is rejected as a legitimate concept for maximization on grounds of it being normatively laden. Pragmatic ethics could serve as a basis to make the normative transparent while at the same time not exclude it from scientific discourse.
A shortened, more concise version of this essay is scheduled to be published in German at Nomos Verlag in 2016.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For an early critique of rational choice theory see for example Sen 1967.
- 2.
Walsh 2000, p. 5.
- 3.
Cf. Smith 1776/2008.
- 4.
Sen 2000, p. 272.
- 5.
See e.g. http://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/09/adam-smith-wealth-of-nations.asp (last accessed on 10 April 2015).
- 6.
Simon 1979, p. 507 (emphasis added).
- 7.
See Simon 1979, p. 502.
- 8.
See Kahneman and Tversky 1979, pp. 263–292.
- 9.
For an overview of the most important heuristics and biases, see Mathis and Steffen 2015, pp. 31–48. For further details on heuristics and biases, see Schweizer 2005; Rachlinski 2000, pp. 95–115; Sunstein 2002, pp. 61–107; Jolls and Sunstein 2006, pp. 199–241; Thaler and Sunstein 2008; Kahneman and Tversky 1981, pp. 453–458; Tversky and Kahneman 1974, pp. 1124–1131, 1991, p. 1039; Kahneman 1997, p. 105, 2003, p. 697, 2011; Tversky and Fox 1995, pp. 269–283; Thomas and Millar 2011, pp. 139–149; Meyerowitz and Chaiken 1987, pp. 500–510; Kahneman et al. 1990, pp. 1325–1348; Kahneman et al. 1991, pp. 193–206; Christensen-Szalanski and Fobian-Willham 1991, pp. 147–168. For a general discussion of behavioural law and economics, see Sunstein 2000; Arlen 1998, p. 1765; Issacharoff 1998, p. 1729; Jolls et al. 1998, pp. 1471–1550; Kelman 1998, p. 1577; Korobkin and Ulen 2000, pp. 1051–1144; Parisi and Smith 2004; Jolls 2009; Englerth 2007, pp. 60–130. For an overview of libertarian paternalism and the problems associated with it, see van Aaken 2015 (focussing on the legal limits of paternalistic nudges ); Mitchell 2005, pp. 1–42; Sunstein and Thaler 2003, pp. 1159–1202.
- 10.
Sunstein and Thaler 2003, p. 1162. Note that Sunstein and Thaler do not elaborate on how the nudger is reliably able to find out how the nudgee judges his or her choice. It is implied, however, that the nudgee’s revealed preferences (outset) systematically deviate from his or her rational preferences (goal). The rational preferences are supposed to be value-neutral and universally accepted, derived from the allegedly equally value-neutral and universally accepted rational choice theory. In other words, rational preferences serve as an axiom and are closed to debate.
- 11.
Thaler and Sunstein 2008, p. 6 (emphasis added).
- 12.
- 13.
See van Aaken 2015.
- 14.
Note how this is closely connected with the ‘naturalistic fallacy’, which claims that it is fallacious to explain e.g. the concept of ‘goodness’ reductively in terms of natural properties, such as ‘being pleasant’ or ‘being desirable’. For further information on the naturalistic fallacy, see George Edward Moore, Principia Ethica, 1903, §10.
- 15.
See for example the complete transcript of the BBC HARD talk interview with Richard Thaler , held in October 2012, accessible via http://tvguide.lastown.com/bbc/preview/hardtalk/richard-thaler-behavioural-economist.html (last accessed on 10 April 2015).
- 16.
See van Aaken 2015.
- 17.
See von Humboldt 1792/1989.
- 18.
See Mill 1859/1869.
- 19.
See Putnam 2002/2004.
- 20.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 9.
- 21.
See Putnam 2002/2004, p. 7.
- 22.
See Kant 1781/1998, A6-7/B10-11. Immanuel Kant further distinguishes between a priori propositions (propositions whose justification do not rely on experience, such as “2+2=4”) and a posteriori propositions (propositions whose justification rely on experience, such as “chairs exist”).
- 23.
Cf. Hume 1738/1978, pp. 469–470.
- 24.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 14.
- 25.
Locke 1689/2008, II.viii.8.
- 26.
Hume 1748/2008, II.3–4.
- 27.
Hume 1748/2008, II.1.
- 28.
Hume 1777/1975, pp. 287–288 (original emphasis).
- 29.
Carnap 1934, p. 22.
- 30.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 19, p. 31.
- 31.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 19 (original emphasis).
- 32.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 21 (original emphasis).
- 33.
See Putnam 2002/2004, p. 22.
- 34.
See Putnam 2002/2004, pp. 23–25.
- 35.
Putnam 2002/2004, pp. 26–27 (original emphasis).
- 36.
Putnam 2002/2004, pp. 26–27.
- 37.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 8.
- 38.
Quine 1951, p. 20.
- 39.
Quine 1951, p. 20.
- 40.
Quine 1951, p. 20.
- 41.
Quine 1951, pp. 33–34.
- 42.
Quine 1951, p. 34.
- 43.
Carnap 1934, p. 22.
- 44.
Quine 1951, p. 38.
- 45.
Quine 1951, p. 38.
- 46.
Quine 1951, p. 38.
- 47.
Quine 1951, p. 39.
- 48.
Quine 1951, pp. 39–40.
- 49.
Quine 1951, p. 43.
- 50.
See Habermas 1992/1998, 1992/1996, 1999. Also see Brune 2010.
- 51.
For an overview see Ott 2001, pp. 165–166.
- 52.
An axiomatic theory T is said to be complete if, and only if, it is consistent and if for every sentence σ in the language of T it holds true that either T ˫ σ (the sentence σ is provable in T) or T ˫ ¬ σ (the sentence not-σ is provable in T, i.e. the sentence σ is refutable in T).
- 53.
For more information on the two Gödel incompleteness theorems, please refer to the respective entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/goedel-incompleteness/ (last accessed: 23.10.2015).
- 54.
See for example Aronson et al. 2008, pp. 163 et seqq.
- 55.
Cf. Putnam 2002/2004, pp. 79–95.
- 56.
Cf. for example Mas-Collel 1982, pp. 72–82.
- 57.
Cf. Putnam 2002/2004, pp. 82–86.
- 58.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 82.
- 59.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 83.
- 60.
- 61.
See e.g. Aronson et al. 2008, pp. 163 et seqq.
- 62.
Cf. Carney 2007. Retrieved on 31.08.2015 via: http://archive.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2007/05/india_transplants_donorpolicy
- 63.
See for example: Bastiat 1848/1995, chapter 2.
- 64.
Putnam 2002/2004, p. 145.
- 65.
Cf. Putnam 2005, pp. 31–32.
- 66.
Cf. Putnam 2002/2004, p. 134.
Bibliography
Arlen, Jennifer. 1998. Comment: The future of behavioral economic analysis of law. Vanderbilt Law Review 51: 1765.
Aronson, Elliot, Timothy D. Wilson, and Robin M. Akert. 2008. Sozialpsychologie, 6th ed. München: Pearson Studium.
Bastiat, Frédéric. 1848/1995. The law. In Selected essays in political economy. Trans. Seymour Cain. Chapter 2. Irvington-on-Hudson: The Foundation for Economic Education.
Bernstein, Jay. 1991. Autonomy and solitude. In Nietzsche and modern German thought, ed. Keith Ansell Pearson, 203–204. London/New York: Routledge.
Brune, Jens Peter. 2010. Moral und Recht. Zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und der Demokratie von Jürgen Habermas. Freiburg im Breisgau: Karl Alber.
Carnap, Rudolf. 1934. The unity of science. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Hubner.
Carnap, Rudolf. 1938. The foundations of logic and mathematics. In International Encyclopedia of United Science vol. 1, Part 1, 139–214. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Carney, Scott. 2007. The case for mandatory organ donation. Wired, 8 May.
Christensen-Szalanski, Jay J., and Cynthia Fobian-Willham. 1991. The hindsight bias: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 48: 147–168.
Englerth, Markus. 2007. Behavioral law and economics – eine kritische Einführung. In Recht und Verhalten, ed. Christoph Engel, Markus Englerth, Jörn Lüdemann, and Indra Spiecker genannt Döhmann, 60–130. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Frankfurt, Harry Gordon. 1988. The importance of what we care about, 22. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992/1996. Between facts and norms. Trans. William Rehg. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1992/1998. Faktizität und Geltung. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Habermas, Jürgen. 1999. Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung. Philosophische Aufsätze. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Hume, David. 1738/1978. A treatise of human nature, eds. L.A. Selby Bigge, and P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hume, David. 1748/2008. An Enquiry concerning human understanding. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hume, David. 1777/1975. Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning the principles of morals, 3rd ed, eds. L.A. Selby Bigge, and P.H. Nidditch. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Issacharoff, Samuel. 1998. Can there be a behavioral law and economics? Vanderbilt Law Review 51: 1729.
Jolls, Christine. 2009. Behavioral law and economics. In Law and economics – A reader, ed. Alain Marciano. New York: Routledge/Chapman & Hall.
Jolls, Christine, and Cass R. Sunstein. 2006. Debiasing through law. Journal of Legal Studies 35: 199–241.
Jolls, Christine, Cass R. Sunstein, and Richard Thaler. 1998. A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Review 50: 1471–1550.
Kahneman, Daniel. 1997. New challenges to the rationality assumption. Legal Theory 3: 105.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2003. A perspective on judgment and choice. Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist 58: 697.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica XVLII: 263–292.
Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky. 1981. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choices. Science 211(4481): 453–458.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack Knetsch, and Richard Thaler. 1990. Experimental tests of the endowment effect and the coase theorem. Journal of Political Economy 98: 1325–1348.
Kahneman, Daniel, Jack Knetsch, and Richard Thaler. 1991. Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. The Journals of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 193–206.
Kant, Immanuel. 1781/1998. The critique of pure reason. Trans. P. Guyer, and A.W. Wood. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kelman, Mark. 1998. Behavioral economics as part of a rhetorical duet: A response to Jolls, Sunstein, and Thaler. Stanford Law Review 50: 1577.
Korobkin, Russell, and Thomas Ulen. 2000. Law and behavioral science: Removing the rationality assumption from law and economics. California Law Review 88: 1051–1144.
Latin, Howard. 1994. “Good” warnings, bad products, and cognitive limitations. UCLA Law Review 41: 1193–1295.
Locke, John. 1689/2008. An essay concerning human understanding. Oxford World’s Classics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mas-Collel, Andreu. 1982. Revealed preference after Samuelson. In Samuelson and neoclassical economics, ed. George R. Feiwel, 72–82. Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.
Mathis, Klaus, and Ariel Steffen. 2015. From rational choice to behavioural economics: Theoretical foundations, empirical findings and legal implications. In European perspectives on behavioural law and economics, economic analysis of law in European legal scholarship 2, ed. Klaus Mathis, 31–48. Cham/Heidelberg/New York/Dordrecht/London: Springer.
Meyerowitz, Beth E., and Shelly Chaiken. 1987. The effect of message framing on breast self-examination: Attitudes, intentions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52: 500–510.
Mill, John Stuart. 1859/1869. On liberty, 4th ed. London: Longman, Roberts and Green Co.
Mitchell, Gregory. 2005. Libertarian paternalism is an oxymoron. Northwestern University Law Review 99(3): 1–42.
Moore, George Edward. 1903. Principia Ethica. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ott, Konrad. 2001. Moralbegründungen zur Einführung. Hamburg: Junius.
Parisi, Francesco, and Vernon Smith. 2004. The law and economics of irrational behavior. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Putnam, Hilary. 2002/2004. The collapse of the fact/value dichotomy and other essays, including the rosenthal lectures. 3rd printing. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Putnam, Hilary. 2005. Ethics without ontology. Cambridge, MA/London: Harvard University Press.
Quine, Willard Van Orman. 1951. Two dogmas of empiricism. Philosophical Review 60: 20–43.
Rachlinski, Jeffrey J. 2000. A positive psychological theory of judging in hindsight. In Behavioral law and economics, ed. Cass R. Sunstein, 95–115. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schweizer, Mark. 2005. Kognitive Täuschungen vor Gericht. Eine empirische Studie. Zürich: Ohne Verlag.
Sen, Amartya. 1967. The nature and classes of perspective judgments. Philosophical Quarterly 17(66): 46–62.
Sen, Amartya. 2000. Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
Simon, Herbert A. 1979. Rational decision making in business organizations. American Economic Review 69: 493–513.
Smith, Adam. 1776/2008. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, ed. Kathryn Sunderland. Oxford: Oxford World’s Classics.
Sunstein, Cass R. (ed.). 2000. Behavioral law and economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2002. Probability neglect: Emotions, worst cases, and law. Yale Law Journal 112: 61–107.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2014. Why nudge? New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Sunstein, Cass R., and Richard H. Thaler. 2003. Libertarian paternalism is not an oxymoron. The University of Chicago Law Review 70(4): 1159–1202.
Thaler, Richard H., and Cass R. Sunstein. 2008. Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.
Thomas, Ayanna K., and Peter R. Millar. 2011. Reducing the framing effect in older and younger adults by encouraging analytic processing. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 67B(2): 139–149.
Tversky, Amos, and Craig R. Fox. 1995. Weighing risk and uncertainty. Psychological Review 102(2): 269–283.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science. New Series. 185(4157): 1124–1131.
Tversky, Amos, and Daniel Kahneman. 1991. Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 1039.
van Aaken, Anne. 2015. Judge the nudge: In search of the legal limits of paternalistic nudging in the EU. In Nudging and the law. What can EU law learn from behavioural sciences?, eds. Alberto Alemanno, and Anne Lise Sibony. Forthcoming. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
von Humboldt, Wilhelm. 1792/1989. Ideen zu einem Versuch, die Grenzen der Wirksamkeit des Staates zu bestimmen. Stuttgart: Reclam Philipp jun. GmbH & Co. KG.
Walsh, Vivian. 2000. Smith after Sen. Review of Political Economy 12(1): 5–25.
Acknowledgement
I would like to sincerely thank Prof. Dr. iur. Klaus Mathis, MA in Economics, and Katrien Van Den Bergh, MA, for their valued input and careful proofreading.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Steffen, A.D. (2016). Nudging Is Judging: The Inevitability of Value Judgments. In: Mathis, K., Tor, A. (eds) Nudging - Possibilities, Limitations and Applications in European Law and Economics. Economic Analysis of Law in European Legal Scholarship, vol 3. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29562-6_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29562-6_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29560-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29562-6
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)