Suppr超能文献

健康助推手段具有强制性吗?

Are health nudges coercive?

作者信息

Quigley Muireann

出版信息

Monash Bioeth Rev. 2014 Mar-Jun;32(1-2):141-58. doi: 10.1007/s40592-014-0008-5.

Abstract

Governments and policy-makers have of late displayed renewed attention to behavioural research in an attempt to achieve a range of policy goals, including health promotion. In particular, approaches which could be labelled as 'nudges' have gained traction with policy-makers. A range of objections to nudging have been raised in the literature. These include claims that nudges undermine autonomy and liberty, may lead to a decrease in responsibility in decision-making, lack transparency, involve deception, and involve manipulation, potentially occasioning coercion. In this article I focus on claims of coercion, examining nudges within two of the main approaches to coercion-the pressure approach and the more recent enforcement approach. I argue that coercion entails an element of control over the behaviour of agents which is not plausibly displayed by the kinds of serious examples of nudges posited in the literature.

摘要

政府和政策制定者近来重新关注行为研究,试图实现一系列政策目标,包括促进健康。特别是,那些可被称为“助推”的方法已获得政策制定者的青睐。文献中对助推提出了一系列反对意见。这些反对意见包括声称助推会破坏自主性和自由,可能导致决策责任下降,缺乏透明度,涉及欺骗和操纵,甚至可能造成胁迫。在本文中,我将重点关注胁迫的主张,在两种主要的胁迫方法——压力方法和最新的强制方法——中审视助推。我认为,胁迫意味着对行为主体的行为具有一定程度的控制,而文献中所列举的那些典型的助推例子似乎并未表现出这种控制。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验