‘Nudge’ and ‘Brave New World’: Perspectives on Paternalism
It might seem strange to compare Aldous Huxley’s seminal work of dystopian science fiction, Brave New World, with its explicit depiction of social engineering to the comparatively benign concept of ‘libertarian paternalism’, as presented in Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein’s work Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth and Happiness. The reason I consider these books as worthy of comparison lies in the underlying assumption that human behaviour can and should be manipulated. The necessity of such manipulation, and its ethical implications, is the focus of this article.
It is a foundation of a liberal society and its institutions that the individual has free will. Thus, an individual’s choices must be respected, and their liberty preserved. If one views this respect for choice, and liberalism itself, as a normative good, then subversion of choice should be viewed critically. So, what is the argument that justifies the manipulation of behaviour in the two works aforementioned? While people can be relied upon to generally do the ‘right thing’, it doesn’t take a doctorate in history to understand that every so often people do the ‘wrong thing’, sometimes with disastrous consequences. Thus, it is sometimes (Nudge) or always (Brave New World) desirable that we prevent bad decisions and guarantee good outcomes via paternalism.
BRAVE NEW WORLD’S APPROACH TO PATERNALISM
How does Brave New World prevent bad decisions and guarantee good outcomes? Via a combination of control over a person’s nature and, how they are nurtured. In the opening chapters of the book, the Director of the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre walks the reader through the intricate details of the process by which people are created and trained to behave according to their caste. I will spare you the specifics of the Director’s monologue and will instead summarise the process with the following two examples. First, alcohol is injected into embryos of those destined for the lower castes, stunting their growth. Second, those same embryos then endure electroshock therapy as children to teach them distaste for books and flowers (representative of beauty and knowledge). The result is a society with strict adherence to the “World State’s” motto, community, identity, stability. Individuals have no ability, nor desire, to question what life would be like had they not been conditioned as they are. Individuals are utterly controlled by their conditioning, and can’t make ‘bad’ decisions. As such, the society runs like clockwork.
NUDGE’S APPROACH TO PATERNALISM
How does Nudge prevent bad decisions and guarantee good outcomes? Comparatively, it is much more subtle. Rather than manipulating a person’s biology and electrocuting them into believing books and flowers are the causes of life’s miseries, Nudge operates on the assumption that people can be influenced into making certain choices depending on how that choice is presented to them. In its introduction, Nudge demonstrates the power of this in the example of food ordering in a school cafeteria. Depending on the order in which food is presented to students in line, the cafeteria manager can increase or decrease the consumption of certain foods by as much as 25 percent. Understanding the effects of ‘choice architecture’ Thaler and Sunstein go on to propose ‘nudges’, or changes to existing choice architectures so that the outcomes are more beneficial.
HUXLEY, SUNSTEIN AND THALER IN DEFENCE OF FREE WILL
Neither book explicitly acknowledges a disbelief in free will. In fact, Brave New World spends a large portion of its latter half arguing that people both are, and should be, free to make bad choices. Similarly, Nudge opens by explaining ‘libertarian paternalism’ as being respectful of individual choice and that the individual should always be free to opt-out. The authors of both books defend and maintain that free will both exists and should be respected.
However, both books, by either creating a fictional work analogous to the real world or in analysing the real world, assume that if we were able to develop a complete and accurate understanding of a person, their biology and lived experience, we would be able to predict and manipulate their actions without limit.
In Brave New World the state controls both a person’s biology and lived experience so that they are predictable. In Nudge, though the authors are not aware of everyone’s experience, they are able to predict behaviour based on heuristics in an individual’s decision making. Thus, they influence their actions.
Unfortunately, if human behaviour is to be understood in the way presented by these two books, then it must also be understood that free will does not exist, or at the very least can be undermined to the extent that its impact on behaviour is negligible.
Brave New World’s assumption that people have an innate desire to express their free will is defeated by the fact that, when conditioned correctly, they clearly have no desire to do so. The members of the society behave in the world according to their understanding of what is appropriate, just as you and I would behave, in our world, according to our understanding of what is appropriate.
Similarly, in Nudge, the understanding that people rely on heuristics to make decisions and that these heuristics can be used to increase the likelihood of certain outcomes, explicitly undermines free will. Thaler and Sunstein repeatedly argue that in allowing people the freedom to choose not to participate, or ‘opt-out’, free will is respected, and thus, there is nothing immoral about the concept of libertarian paternalism. While this is a nice thought, the basic premise of ‘nudges’ being that people can design context and choice such that a certain proportion of people will be influenced, undermines this defence.
If choices can be presented such that people will choose the preferred outcome of whoever is offering that choice, then it is incredibly unlikely they will design the choice with ‘opt-out’ at front and centre. By Thaler and Sunstein’s own admission people are unlikely to opt-out even if they are explicitly made aware it’s a possibility. Additionally, while it is certainly possible for people to opt-out where the choice is between participating and not, in cases where the decision isn’t binary and none of the choices are “I don’t want to participate or be nudged”, the opportunity to opt-out disappears. In the example of the cafeteria explained earlier it is clear that students cannot simply decide not to eat at school. The opt-out defence is inadequate for the simple fact that people cannot opt-out of having their behaviour influenced.
HOW DOES THE ABSENCE OF FREE WILL AFFECT THE MORALITY OF PATERNALISM?
So, if free will doesn’t exist, or can be undermined to the point of irrelevance, how does this impact the morality of the actions of the State in Brave New World or the proposals for State action in Nudge? The State in Brave New World is much more likely to be perceived as malevolent and tyrannical because it actively suppresses freedom of choice with the goal of ‘stability’. In contrast, ‘nudges’ are not seen this way, because Thaler and Sunstein maintain that people should be free to opt-out and argue that all they’re doing is helping people to stay on the right path.
However, if ‘nudges’ can be applied on a much more individual level and can be used to influence ever more specific behaviour in the name of ‘societal good’, then the we must ask the question: is there a tangible difference between taking advantage of the behaviours and habits that people have learned and teaching them those behaviours and habits in the first place? And if the answer is no, is there a moral or ethical difference between what is proposed by either book? Can it be said that nudges are any less morally contentious than the social and genetic engineering present in Brave New World.
It is at this point that I’ll note I’m much less cynical about libertarian paternalism than I probably seem. I’m not arguing an equivalence between Thaler & Sunstein and Mustapha Mond, Huxley’s Resident World Controller for Western Europe, and I’m not arguing that ‘nudges’ are evil and should never be implemented. On the contrary, I believe the work that is being done in behavioural sciences to improve policy in both the public and private spheres has been and will continue to be beneficial. I, probably much like you, intuitively believe that the State in Brave New World is tyrannical, and the reason I think a discussion about the morality of these two books is important is that we could find ourselves in a ‘brave new world’ if we don’t find adequate moral reasoning for preventing such a thing from happening.
The morality of ‘nudging’ rests on free will and if, as I believe is the case, free will either doesn’t exist or can be undermined, then we need a new line of defence against social engineering. We can manipulate behaviour, as intuitively concerning as that sounds, for the greater good. We can successfully influence people to choose better health care plans and save more for retirement, but where do we stop? I would be lying if I said I had an answer for any of the questions I have asked in this article and, having wrestled with these ideas over the course of writing this piece, I can confidently say I’m no closer to finding an answer than I was when I started. What I can conclude is that, as we dive deeper into behavioural science, we must confront the possibility that undermining free will can lead to better societal outcomes and work towards more adequate ethical justifications for behaviour manipulation and find the upper limit on such manipulation.
Jayden Davidson is a third year PPE student, with a keen interest in behaviour, free will and the dilemmas that follow from believing the latter doesn’t exist.
