使用劝导减少肉类消费时的道德考虑:通过 FORGOOD 道德框架进行分析

IF 1.4 Q3 BUSINESS JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY Pub Date : 2023-12-14 DOI:10.1007/s10603-023-09558-3
L. Lades, F. Nova
{"title":"使用劝导减少肉类消费时的道德考虑:通过 FORGOOD 道德框架进行分析","authors":"L. Lades, F. Nova","doi":"10.1007/s10603-023-09558-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Nudges are increasingly used to encourage sustainable and often meat-free diets. Interventions to reduce people’s meat consumption are motivated by concerns about health, animal welfare, and the environment. However, dietary choices are of personal and cultural significance, and not everybody wants to be nudged towards a plant-based diet. Nudging has been criticised for being paternalistic, manipulative, and a violation of personal autonomy, amongst other points. It is important to ask whether it is ethical to nudge people towards plant-based diets or whether it is unethical not to do so. Using the FORGOOD ethics framework, this paper organises diverse ethical arguments both in favour and against nudging people towards plant-based diets into seven dimensions: fairness, openness, respect, goals, opinions, options, and delegation. We propose that policymakers, researchers, retailers, restaurant managers, and others who design food menus, set food defaults, decide about which labels to use, and design food choice architectures in other ways should use the presented arguments to reflect on whether nudging people towards plant-based diets is ethical.</p>","PeriodicalId":47436,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ethical Considerations When Using Nudges to Reduce Meat Consumption: an Analysis Through the FORGOOD Ethics Framework\",\"authors\":\"L. Lades, F. Nova\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10603-023-09558-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Nudges are increasingly used to encourage sustainable and often meat-free diets. Interventions to reduce people’s meat consumption are motivated by concerns about health, animal welfare, and the environment. However, dietary choices are of personal and cultural significance, and not everybody wants to be nudged towards a plant-based diet. Nudging has been criticised for being paternalistic, manipulative, and a violation of personal autonomy, amongst other points. It is important to ask whether it is ethical to nudge people towards plant-based diets or whether it is unethical not to do so. Using the FORGOOD ethics framework, this paper organises diverse ethical arguments both in favour and against nudging people towards plant-based diets into seven dimensions: fairness, openness, respect, goals, opinions, options, and delegation. We propose that policymakers, researchers, retailers, restaurant managers, and others who design food menus, set food defaults, decide about which labels to use, and design food choice architectures in other ways should use the presented arguments to reflect on whether nudging people towards plant-based diets is ethical.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47436,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-023-09558-3\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BUSINESS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF CONSUMER POLICY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10603-023-09558-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BUSINESS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们越来越多地使用微推来鼓励可持续的、通常是无肉的饮食。减少人们肉类消费的干预措施是出于对健康、动物福利和环境的关注。然而,饮食选择对个人和文化都有重要意义,并不是每个人都想被推动到植物性饮食。轻推被批评为家长式的、操纵性的、侵犯个人自主权的行为。重要的是要问一下,推动人们转向植物性饮食是合乎道德的,还是不这样做是不道德的。利用FORGOOD伦理框架,本文从七个方面组织了支持和反对推动人们采用植物性饮食的各种伦理论点:公平、开放、尊重、目标、意见、选择和授权。我们建议,政策制定者、研究人员、零售商、餐厅经理以及其他设计食物菜单、设置食物默认值、决定使用哪种标签以及以其他方式设计食物选择架构的人,应该利用本文提出的论点来反思,推动人们转向植物性饮食是否合乎道德。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Ethical Considerations When Using Nudges to Reduce Meat Consumption: an Analysis Through the FORGOOD Ethics Framework

Nudges are increasingly used to encourage sustainable and often meat-free diets. Interventions to reduce people’s meat consumption are motivated by concerns about health, animal welfare, and the environment. However, dietary choices are of personal and cultural significance, and not everybody wants to be nudged towards a plant-based diet. Nudging has been criticised for being paternalistic, manipulative, and a violation of personal autonomy, amongst other points. It is important to ask whether it is ethical to nudge people towards plant-based diets or whether it is unethical not to do so. Using the FORGOOD ethics framework, this paper organises diverse ethical arguments both in favour and against nudging people towards plant-based diets into seven dimensions: fairness, openness, respect, goals, opinions, options, and delegation. We propose that policymakers, researchers, retailers, restaurant managers, and others who design food menus, set food defaults, decide about which labels to use, and design food choice architectures in other ways should use the presented arguments to reflect on whether nudging people towards plant-based diets is ethical.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
8.70%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Journal of Consumer Policy is a refereed, international journal which encompasses a broad range of issues concerned with consumer affairs. It looks at the consumer''s dependence on existing social and economic structures, helps to define the consumer''s interest, and discusses the ways in which consumer welfare can be fostered - or restrained - through actions and policies of consumers, industry, organizations, government, educational institutions, and the mass media. The Journal of Consumer Policy publishes theoretical and empirical research on consumer and producer conduct, emphasizing the implications for consumers and increasing communication between the parties in the marketplace. Articles cover consumer issues in law, economics, and behavioural sciences. Current areas of topical interest include the impact of new information technologies, the economics of information, the consequences of regulation or deregulation of markets, problems related to an increasing internationalization of trade and marketing practices, consumers in less affluent societies, the efficacy of economic cooperation, consumers and the environment, problems with products and services provided by the public sector, the setting of priorities by consumer organizations and agencies, gender issues, product safety and product liability, and the interaction between consumption and associated forms of behaviour such as work and leisure. The Journal of Consumer Policy reports regularly on developments in legal policy with a bearing on consumer issues. It covers the integration of consumer law in the European Union and other transnational communities and analyzes trends in the application and implementation of consumer legislation through administrative agencies, courts, trade associations, and consumer organizations. It also considers the impact of consumer legislation on the supply side and discusses comparative legal approaches to issues of cons umer policy in different parts of the world. The Journal of Consumer Policy informs readers about a broad array of consumer policy issues by publishing regularly both extended book reviews and brief, non-evaluative book notes on new publications in the field. Officially cited as: J Consum Policy
期刊最新文献
Book Notes “Economics and Social Sciences” 1/2024 E-cigarettes and Smoking: Correlation, Causation, and Selection Bias 3Rs of Sustainable Activism on Social Media: Relatability, Reliability and Redress Determinants of the Behaviour of Entities on the Insurance Market in the Light of Changes Introduced by the IDD Directive Has Mutual Recognition in the EU Failed?—A Legal-Empirical Analysis on the Example of Food Supplements Containing Botanicals and Other Bioactive Substances
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1