Nudging, Bullshitting, and the Meta-Nudge

In "Nudging, Bullshitting, and the Meta-Nudge", the author responds to William Simkulet’s claim that nudging is bullshitting (according to Harry Frankfurt’s analysis of bullshit and bullshitting), and therefore nudging during the process of informed consent renders consent invalid. The aut...

Full description

Saved in:  
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Gelfand, Scott D. (Author)
Format: Electronic Article
Language:English
Check availability: HBZ Gateway
Interlibrary Loan:Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany)
Published: 2023
In: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
Year: 2023, Volume: 32, Issue: 1, Pages: 56-68
Further subjects:B Informed Consent
B Nudge theory
B Priming
B meta-nudge
B bullshit
B Framing
B nudging
Online Access: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Volltext (kostenfrei)
Description
Summary:In "Nudging, Bullshitting, and the Meta-Nudge", the author responds to William Simkulet’s claim that nudging is bullshitting (according to Harry Frankfurt’s analysis of bullshit and bullshitting), and therefore nudging during the process of informed consent renders consent invalid. The author argues that nudging is not necessarily bullshitting and then explains that although this issue is philosophically interesting, practically speaking, even if nudging is bullshitting, it does not follow that nudging necessarily renders informed consent invalid. This is obviously true in those situations in which nudging during the process of informed consent is unavoidable. The author concludes with a discussion of the meta-nudge and suggests that physicians can use the meta-nudge to eliminate or decrease the power of inappropriate, problematic, or undesirable nudges.
ISSN:1469-2147
Contains:Enthalten in: Cambridge quarterly of healthcare ethics
Persistent identifiers:DOI: 10.1017/S0963180122000500