When freedom of choice doesn’t matter

Introduction

I will argue here that, at least in the short run, we need less freedom and more manipulation, and that this loss of freedom is not a valuable loss. Not all freedoms are equal. It is true that the ability to choose between options brings with it certain goods that we cherish, but even having many options taken from us does not prevent our achieving those goods. We need to have areas where we exercise choice, but we do not need to exercise choice in all areas. Being subject to constraints, and losing, in some quantifiable sense, more choices, can result in the possibility of choices that are more meaningful for ourselves and for those around us.

To understand when freedom of choice is important and when it is not, we need to consider what about liberty is valuable. We need to consider whether and when freedom, either in the sense of internal choices somehow arrived at without undue influence, or external actions taken without fear of repercussions, are peculiarly, and overridingly, significant. And we need to know what it does to us to have our choices constrained. Does this diminish our ability to make decisions? Will we feel that we have lost our individuality? Does it reduce, or augment, self-respect?

Answers to some of these questions will depend on issues of moral value. Answers to others will depend on empirical evidence, including the psychological study of individuals who lack certain options. We have, though, at least some evidence that we may consider when we speculate about the direction in which we want to go.

Mistakes and ways to address them

We make many mistakes when we choose freely. Wanting one thing for ourselves, we often choose what will not only fail to promote our getting that thing, but something that actually prevents it. As has been demonstrated exhaustively, we suffer from cognitive biases, tendencies to be affected by considerations we ourselves would consider to be irrelevant if we could give them objective consideration.¹ This should come as no surprise. We know that while we want very much to live a healthy, relatively wealthy old age we eat junk food, avoid exercise, and spend every raise we get on fripperies, instead of saving it for the rent, food, and medical care we will really feel the lack of later. This is, of course, not a universal phenomenon: there may be those who live lives in which every action perfectly embodies their values, and most of us are able to choose rationally in some situations. There are not many such people who can do this consistently, though, in all the places in which they need to. Most of us fall prey to poor thinking in at least some significant areas, and as a result we too often fail to reach our own goals.

These facts have been well-researched and are familiar to many of us. For this reason, various plans have been developed that might prevent us from falling into error. Some of these proposals allow only the mildest sort of interference in the decision-making procedure. Governments have adopted some plans for simple education—for example, the idea that we should post calorie information in fast food places so that we are likely to at least cast an eye at something that tells us that our McDonald’s snack includes more calories than we ought to eat in an entire day, or a notification on a cigarette package that cigarettes cause cancer. Other plans promote more in the nature of interference—positive “nudges” that make it more likely that you will choose the right alternative, but which leave open the possibility that you could choose the less beneficial. They change the “choice architecture” but leave all options on the table. Well-known examples include putting healthier foods at eye level in a cafeteria, since you are more likely to choose what is at eye-level, but still offering the chips, or making the best pension plan for the employee the default option, since that is what we normally accept, but allowing...