Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justificatory challenges

Soc Choice Welf (2016) 47:459480 DOI 10.1007/s00355-016-0972-1

ORIGINAL PAPER

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s00355-016-0972-1&domain=pdf

Web End = http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s00355-016-0972-1&domain=pdf

Web End = Decision sciences and the new case for paternalism: three welfare-related justicatory challenges

Roberto Fumagalli1,2,3

Received: 23 October 2015 / Accepted: 22 May 2016 / Published online: 3 June 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Abstract Several authors have recently advocated a so-called new case for paternalism, according to which empirical ndings from distinct decision sciences provide compelling reasons in favour of paternalistic interference. In their view, the available behavioural and neuro-psychological ndings enable paternalists to address traditional anti-paternalistic objections and reliably enhance the well-being of their target agents. In this paper, I combine insights from decision-making research, moral philosophy and evidence-based policy evaluation to assess the merits of this case. In particular, I articulate and defend three complementary arguments that, I claim, challenge even the best available calls for such case. In doing so, I identify the main justicatory challenges faced by the new paternalists and explicate the implications of these challenges for the ongoing philosophical debate about the justiability of paternalistic interference.

1 Introduction

In recent years, several authors have advocated a so-called new case for paternalism (henceforth, NCP), according to which empirical ndings from distinct decision sciences provide compelling reasons in favour of paternalistic interference (see e.g. Hausman and Welch 2010; Rizzo and Whitman 2009a, for detailed reconstructions). The idea is that the available behavioural and neuro-psychological ndings enable paternalists to address traditional anti-paternalistic objections and reliably enhance

B Roberto Fumagalli

[email protected] http://personal.lse.ac.uk/fumagall/

1 University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany

2 London School of Economics, London, UK

3 University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

123

460 R. Fumagalli

the well-being of their target agents. Behavioural and neuro-psychological ndings have been claimed to support paternalistic interference in a variety of domains, ranging from consumer choices to health care and reproductive decisions. These claims, in turn, prompted heated discussions regarding the justiability of paternalism both in philosophy (see e.g. Bovens 2009; Carter 2014) and in other disciplines (see e.g. Rubinstein and Arad 2015; Sugden 2008, and the special issue of this Journal, 2012, 38 (4), in economics; Glaeser 2006, and Rachlinski 2003, in psychology; and Camerer 2006, and Farah 2012, in neuroscience).

In this paper, I combine insights from decision-making...