The ethics of manipulation

Hello everyone, and welcome back! I hope everyone had a restful summer as we're now settling back into work/school again. I thought that today we could tap into the psychology side of things and look at the ethics of manipulation. This will relate to the Nudge theory proposed by Richard Thaler, which I've mentioned before in my previous blog entries.

Almost all major companies and businesses across the world use a variety of techniques to not only obtain customers but maintain them. However, how ethical these techniques are is often a subject of debate. Nudge theory among the most popular, is where companies use certain 'nudges' to subconsciously influence consumers subconsciously, often without them even knowing! When you wait with all your groceries in the queue, you stand in mini isles filled with tempting sweet treats, incentivizing you to grab one and add it to the cart. This is a seemingly harmless tactic, right? However, there are dangers, such as the possibility of children being influenced to make unhealthy choices, and developing sugar addiction. The US has a 19.7% obesity rate for children alone, and once the habits kick in, they're challenging to break, setting people up for a lifetime of health problems.

Nudging and influencing customers can be justified if the cause results in the greatest good for most people. While more sales of the items at the cashier may benefit the supermarket, the larger group (the customer), is negatively affected. Many companies do not have the supposed 'greater good' in mind when creating techniques to ensure their sales and profits are maximized. This is why manipulative techniques can harm consumers, and pose as unethical. Although not implemented to improve sales or boost the desirability of a product, government regulations to put graphic images of side effects of products such as cigarettes are also a form of manipulation, making the consumer feel guilt or fear to deter them from purchasing and using the product. Governments using fear to hold power over our choices sounds scary when you view it from that perspective. Is it then justified? Since it is seemingly in the best interest of society's health, even though it is still technically manipulation and influence? I

I looked into nudges from a deontological perspective, an ethical theory rooted in the work of philosopher Immanuel Kant. I found that deontology argues that actions should be judged by their compliance with moral rules or duties, not by their outcomes. From this viewpoint, any form of manipulation—even for a good cause or results in positive outcomes—can be considered morally wrong. This is because it conflicts with an individual's right to autonomy, the ability to make decisions free from external influence.

The thing is, nudges often exploit people's cognitive biases, using unconscious processes to guide decisions rather than allowing people to make fully rational, independent choices. For example, in organ donation systems that rely on an "opt-out" structure, people become donors by default unless they actively choose not to. While this probably increases donation rates and can help save lives, Kant would likely argue that many people "choose" this option not out of true intent but because they were nudged in that direction. From a Kantian perspective, this form of manipulation disrespects individuals as rational agents, as they’re led toward a specific decision that maybe they haven't fully considered.

Another example is default options in retirement savings plans. Many employers automatically enroll workers in retirement programs, once again with the option to opt out. At first glance, this seems like a good thing since it helps people save for their future. However, the nudge relies on people’s natural tendency to stick with the default option rather than making a conscious, active decision. Even though the outcome is positive (more savings for retirement), the process has ethical issues because individuals aren’t actively making their own decisions.

What makes this even more complicated is the lack of transparency in many nudges. We often don’t realize we are being influenced, which means we can’t give informed consent to these subtle forms of manipulation. This lack of awareness is an issue because it prevents individuals from knowing how and why their behavior is being influenced. Consent and transparency are crucial to ensuring people remain in control of their decisions.

However, I’m not saying all nudges are bad. There are cases where nudging can be used for genuinely beneficial purposes, such as improving public health or encouraging positive financial behavior. However, this viewpoint, through deontology, shows that it's best to be cautious. Just because a nudge works and is effective, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s ethical. Even when the goal is well-intentioned, you have to consider whether the means—influencing people's decisions without their full knowledge—can ever be fully justified by the ends.

In conclusion, nudging and using subtle manipulative techniques might seem harmless, and in many cases, it helps people make better choices. Yet manipulating people, even subtly, without their full knowledge or consent, violates their right to self-determination. So next time you find yourself being nudged, whether at the grocery store checkout or when signing up for an online service, think whether it's you making the choice, or someone else making it for you.

That's all guys. I hope you enjoyed reading it! See you next time :)