Evidence receipt / evaluation
Published · transcript-backedCass Sunstein: evaluation
22 Jun 2016 Conversations with Tyler Cass Sunstein on Judicial Minimalism, the Supreme Court, and Star Wars (Live at Mason)
“Now, if you push me to talk about liberty — that liberty is an ingredient in welfare, meaning being able to go the direction that you want is welfare-promoting for the people who are exercising their freedom, that’s one point. And the other point is the Millian point that there are multiple contexts, at least, let’s say — we don’t want to make a theology of this, as I think Mill sometimes almost did — but we want to acknowledge that people know, you know, by and large, in acknowledging the behavioral biases better than third parties, what will make their lives go better.”
Source trail
Everything needed to verify it.
- Speaker
- Cass Sunstein
- Attribution
- Verified speaker
- Claim type
- evaluation
- Recorded
- 22 Jun 2016
- Publisher
- Conversations with Tyler
Transcript context
…But, like, in most pluralist theories I tend to think there’s an underlying metaphysical assumption used to perform aggregation. So, banning smoking is too coercive. It’s not obvious to me why that is correct. I mean, most people feel that way, but we ban plenty of other drugs, and that’s not too coercive. There’s some mix of costs and benefits. There’s a lot of things people eat which are bad for them. We don’t do much about that. And in the scale of preferences, autonomy, well-being, liberty — again, what’s the final principle ruling these tradeoffs? That’s like the hidden metaphysical assumption of Cass Sunstein that I want to get at it. OK — you’re right. OK, great. I think you’re completely right that the claim that it’s too coercive — to ban smoking — that’s a conclusion in search of an argument. And the shorthand is that the welfare consequences, all things considered, of a ban would be negative, but that would have to be earned rather than just asserted. That’s my view, but I haven’t given you data to support it. So, what I’d like to do at every difficult point is to be able to say that whatever your metaphysical assumptions, you will be able to go in a certain direction that will be compatible with — let’s call it nonsectarian welfarism. Now, if you push me to talk about liberty — that liberty is an ingredient in welfare, meaning being able to go the direction that you want is welfare-promoting for the people who are exercising their freedom, that’s one point. And the other point is the Millian point that there are multiple contexts, at least, let’s say — we don’t want to make a theology of this, as I think Mill sometimes almost did — but we want to acknowledge that people know, you know, by and large, in acknowledging the behavioral biases better than third parties, what will make their lives go better. So, to see liberty as an ingredient in welfare because of its exercise and to see it as a heuristic for what’s actually going to promote welfare — those are both good ideas. Let me tell you what I love about nudge and see if I can pull you into greater love of nudge.…
Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.