Joby Varghese

Nudge theory proposes to deliberately alter people’s behaviour or choices for their welfare. Based on insights from behavioural economics, choice architects intentionally design nudges to influence agents’ behaviour or choices towards specific options as judged by themselves. In the context of nudging practices, GPS is frequently referred to as a “prime” example of nudging. The problem is not only that GPS is misclassified as a nudge, but also that it is invoked to launder ethical concerns associated with other nudges by importing the moral intuitions of a tool into the governance of libertarian paternalistic choice architecture. Proponents claim that, since GPS is an ethically uncontroversial nudge, similar acceptance should be extended to other nudges. However, we argue that this comparison overlooks critical distinctions in the design objectives and applications of GPS and nudges. During navigation, the primary purpose of GPS is to provide users with efficient route guidance and to enhance user experience based on user input. Unlike navigation by GPS, nudges aim to steer individuals’ behaviour or choices away from one option and gently guide them towards another option through choice architecture. This paper distinguishes the structure and purpose behind the design of nudges from that of GPS. Based on the necessary conditions of a nudge, we demonstrate that GPS does not meet the criteria for being classified as a nudge. Therefore, GPS should not be considered a nudge and, hence, cannot be used as a prime example of a nudge to justify nudging in ethical discourse.

Nudging is typically understood as a design intended to influence the behaviour or choices of decision-makers to promote their own or other stakeholders’ welfare by steering choices in beneficial directions without restricting their freedom of choice. This paper explores the ethical dimensions of nudging and provides an account that defends the framework of nudging from a virtue ethics perspective. We will do so by examining the design and purposes of nudging and its relationship with welfare, virtue and eudaimonia. We argue that the notion of welfare in nudging is closely associated with the notion of external goods in the Nicomachean Ethics and that certain nudges can be helpful in cultivating virtues. We refer to nudges such as virtue-conducive nudges that aim to enhance welfare and also support the cultivation of virtues over time. We identify two key pathways to explore the interplay between nudging, virtue, welfare and eudaimonia. In the first pathway, we discuss those nudges which aim at promoting welfare and also contribute to the development of virtues over time. The second pathway explores those nudges that enhance welfare as a consequence of virtue development. In the Nicomachean Ethics, both welfare and virtues are essential for attaining eudaimonia. By exploring the relationships between nudging, welfare and virtue, this paper provides an account that defends the design and practice of nudging from a virtue ethics perspective.

Critical thinking plays a vital role in education by fostering intellectual independence and resilience. From a Cartesian perspective, epistemic curiosity embodies the spirit of methodological doubt, where questioning and scepticism are essential for arriving at indubitable knowledge. Virtue epistemologists contend that curiosity is an intellectual virtue necessary for the development of wisdom and the search for truth. Epistemic autonomy, on the other hand, is an epistemological agent’s ability to independently govern his or her beliefs and reasoning. It empowers students to critically evaluate information, resist undue influence, and form justified beliefs through rational deliberation. This paper discusses how students’ excessive reliance on AI tools for knowledge acquisition may compromise their capacity for autonomous learning and critical thinking. The paper also explores (i) the epistemological impact of the use of AI tools in education on epistemic curiosity and epistemic autonomy, (ii) on active inquiry and the resilience-building experience of problem-solving, and (iii) the epistemological consequences of superficial learning, instant gratification and reduced cognitive struggle. Finally, the paper proposes certain strategies to mitigate the AI’s impact on critical thinking while AI tools are used for learning.

A general criterion for distinguishing between epistemic and non-epistemic values is that the former promotes the attainment of truth whereas the latter does not. Daniel Steel is a proponent of this criterion, although it was initially proposed by McMullin. There are at least two consequences of this criterion; it always prioritizes epistemic values over non-epistemic values in scientific research, and it overlooks the diverse aims of science, especially the aims of regulatory or policy-oriented science. This criterion assumes the lexical priority of truth or lexical priority of evidence. This paper attempts to show a few inadequacies of this assumption. The paper also demonstrates why epistemic priority over non-epistemic values is a problematic stance and how constraining the role of non-epistemic values as ‘tiebreakers’ may undermine the diverse aims of science.

One of the most significant ethical concerns in the context of the use of AI in healthcare is the patient’s autonomy and informed consent. The problem of autonomy emerges from the concern that black box AI could endanger patient autonomy because its use in healthcare is incompatible with informed consent practice in healthcare. In this paper, I argue that AI’s opaque workings can be reconciled with morally justified healthcare practices through a coherent ethical framework based on consequentialism, and AI can preserve the autonomy of patients by guaranteeing transparency, disclosure and probabilistic assessment during the treatment process. Further, I will contend that although AI’s decision-making process remains opaque in terms of the internal workings of its algorithms, this lack of transparency does not necessarily undermine the ethical principle of informed consent if we employ “The rule of transparency and probabilistic assessment” grounded on a consequentialist framework.

This paper proposes a functional approach to characterize epistemic and nonepistemic values. The paper argues that epistemic values are functionally homogeneous since they act as criteria to evaluate the epistemic virtues a hypothesis ought to possess, and they validate scientific knowledge claims objectively. Conversely, non-epistemic values are functionally heterogeneous since they may promote multiple and sometimes conflicting aims in different research contexts. An incentive of espousing the functional approach is that it helps us understand how values can operate in appropriate and inappropriate ways in scientific research and inappropriate influences can eventually be prevented. The idea is to argue that since non-epistemic values are functionally heterogeneous, they cannot provide objective reasons for the acceptance of a hypothesis. However, their involvement is necessary in certain research contexts and the problem is the involvement of these need not be always legitimate. By analyzing a case from chemical research, I demonstrate that how non-epistemic values might influence scientific research and, then, I go on to demonstrate that how a proper understanding of the functions of different kinds of values might promote the attainment of multiple goals of a particular research in a legitimate and socially relevant way.

A general criterion for distinguishing between epistemic and non-epistemic values is that the former promotes the attainment of truth whereas the latter does not. Daniel Steel (2010, 2016) is a proponent of this criterion, although it was initially proposed by McMullin (1983). There are at least two consequences of this criterion; (i) it always prioritizes epistemic values over non-epistemic values in scientific research, and (ii) it overlooks the diverse aims of science, especially the aims of regulatory or policy-oriented science. This criterion assumes the lexical priority of truth or lexical priority of evidence. This paper attempts to show a few inadequacies of this assumption. The paper also demonstrates why epistemic priority over non-epistemic values is a problematic stance and how constraining the role of non-epistemic values as ‘tiebreakers’ may undermine the diverse aims of science.

This paper examines the case of Ebola, ça Suffit trial which was conducted in Guinea during Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) outbreak in 2015. I demonstrate that various non-epistemic considerations may legitimately influence the criteria for evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of a candidate vaccine. Such non-epistemic considerations, which are social, ethical, and pragmatic, can be better placed and addressed in scientific research by appealing to non-epistemic values. I consider two significant features any newly developed vaccine should possess; (1) the duration of immunity the vaccine provides; and (2) safety with respect to the side effects of the vaccine. Then, I argue that social and ethical values are relevant and desirable in setting the parameters for evaluating these two features of vaccines. The parameters that are employed for setting up the criteria for assessing the features might have far-reaching implications on the well-being of society in general, and the health conditions of several thousand people in particular. The reason is that these features can play a decisive role during the evaluation of the efficacy and effectiveness of the vaccine. I conclude by showing why it is necessary to reject the concept of epistemic priority, at least when scientists engage in policy-oriented research.

In this essay, I argue that at least in two phases of pharmaceutical research, especially while assessing the adequacy of the accumulated data and its interpretation, the influence of non-epistemic values is necessary. I examine a specific case from the domain of pharmaceutical research and demonstrate that there are multiple competing sets of values which may legitimately or illegitimately influence different phases of the inquiry. In such cases, the choice of the appropriate set of values—epistemic as well as non-epistemic—should be made on the basis of the set’s viability to promote specific epistemic and social aims of the research, in the case at hand, rather than other competing aims. I put forth an account which addresses two philosophically significant and interrelated questions in the context of values in science debates: which aim should be prioritized when there are different stakeholders who try to achieve competing but, sometimes, conflicting goals; and what should be the criteria according to which the prioritization of a particular goal over other competing goals can be determined? I argue that both these questions can be addressed by invoking the principle of non-arbitrariness and the mere means principle and self-determination right. The philosophical import of raising and addressing these questions from an ethical perspective is that this approach leads to a better understanding of problems in today’s pharmaceutical research and guides us in efforts to alleviate these problems.

The recent Ebola virus disease outbreak in Western African countries has raised questions regarding the feasibility of adopting conventional trial designs such as randomized controlled trials for conducting experimental trials in the midst of a fatal epidemic. In the context of Ebola ça Suffit trial conducted in Guinea for testing the efficacy and effectiveness of rVSV–ZEBOV, a candidate vaccine, I argue that the trial design and the methodologies adopted for the trial have been rightly chosen for their ethical appropriateness and social utilities rather than only epistemic advantages. In this paper, I propose and defend the view that in varying scientific research contexts, it is entirely legitimate that non-epistemic values may be prioritized over epistemic considerations. Two vital methodological choices scientists should make while designing a clinical trial are: the choice of appropriate control group and the choice of appropriate randomization. Given this background, I show that the choice of delayed vaccination arm as the control group over placebo control group and the choice of cluster randomization over individually controlled randomization for conducting Ebola ça Suffit trial are perfect instances of such a scenario where addressing social and ethical issues have been justifiably prioritized over epistemic values so that the research in a specific scientific context could be conducted in a socially relevant manner.

The Principle of Common Cause (PCC) puts forward the idea that events which occur simultaneously and are correlated have a prior common cause which screens off the correlation. I endorse the view that the PCC does qualify as a principle that can be used as a tool in explaining improbable coincidences. However, though there are epistemological advantages in common cause explanations of correlated events, the PCC is not impeccable. This paper offers a preliminary assessment of the PCC advocated by Reichenbach, and then attempts to illustrate three scenarios in which the principle might be inadequate in explaining correlated events. The paper also compares the Common Cause Principle and the Causal Markov Condition (CMC), and examines the advantages of CMC over the Common Cause Principle.