welfare

It ought to be evident that the practice is not forbidden. We shall see that manipulation may be beneficial to people's well-being. However, there is a unique welfarist criticism of manipulation that looks like this. Generally speaking, choosers know what is best for them (if they are adults and do not have a capacity issue, that is, ). They can access their circumstances, limitations, and preferences in a unique way. They are not given a fair or sufficient opportunity to consider all the options, thus if they are tricked, they are deprived of the (complete) capacity to make decisions for themselves.

A person has a duty to educate others in order to enable them to analyze their options and make better decisions for themselves.

The manipulator's issue is that he doesn't have sufficient understanding about the chooser's ideals, preferences, and circumstances.93 Despite not having that information, he nevertheless undermines the process by which decision-makers determine what is in their best interests.

If the manipulator prioritizes his own interests over those of the choosers, the situation gets even worse.

This is how it is possible to think of a self-serving manipulator as robbing individuals of their agency and allocating their resources in the direction of their choice.

For these reasons, the same worries that underpin Mill's Harm Principle also form the basis of the welfarist critique of paternalism. According to Mill, the issue with outsiders—including government officials—is that they don't have the right knowledge. According to Mill, the average person "has means of knowledge immeasurably surpassing those that can be possessed by any one else," and the individual "is the person most interested in his own well-being."

The "general presumptions" that society uses to try to override an individual's judgment "may be altogether wrong, and even if right, are as likely as not to be misapplied to individual cases."

A person experiencing dementia or a kid is less likely to object to manipulation.

Parents frequently mistreat young children, in part to further their welfare. People with dementia are mistreated by caregivers. Although we generally take these procedures for granted, there are scenarios in which they might raise significant moral dilemmas. The interests in autonomy and dignity impose limitations even in this situation, even if the relevant manipulation serves the interests of the people being influenced.

Despite these arguments, it ought to be evident that, from a welfarist perspective, manipulation should not be prohibited .Everything hinges on how much manipulation enhances the wellbeing of the populace. To get the argument, picture a kind of idealized father who is a benevolent, all-knowing, welfare-promoting manipulator who is only concerned with the welfare of those being duped, who possesses all the necessary knowledge, and who is impervious to error. Theoretically, we should applaud the welfare-promoting manipulator for welfare-related reasons. The main caveat is that there will be a welfare loss and that loss will need to be factored into the total assessment if individuals are aware that they are being controlled and do not like it. The basic idea is that if individuals detest manipulators,manipulation is unlikely to be justified on the basis of welfare (unless it is concealed, which creates other issues).

But ignore that point for now. The primary issue with the thought experiment is the likelihood that manipulators are neither benevolent nor all-knowing. Their tendency to manipulate others is evidence that they frequently have their own goals. Should they be

If you truly care about the chooser's well-being, why not make an effort to convince them?

Why go over the bounds of deception? To be sure, in certain situations—like when time is of the importance or the chooser is incapable—the manipulator could be able to provide an answer (because, for example, he is a youngster or very unwell).

Consider the following scenario: let's say that System 1 is the target of graphic health warnings, which directly save many lives. Let's also imagine that factual information alone cannot save as many lives as graphic health warnings.

There is a lot that can be claimed in favor of graphic health warnings on welfare grounds.

The example demonstrates how context is crucial when considering wellbeing; the presence of manipulation need not undermine the manipulator's welfare calculations. However, in many cases, mistrust of manipulators' goals is entirely appropriate. It must be noted at this point that manipulators could not have sufficient knowledge to defend their activities, even in cases where those objectives are desirable.