Ethical persuasion frameworks smuggle in unexamined standards of what counts as good

Evidence

This argument takes a few important things for granted. “Ethical persuasion” means persuading the user to do something that is good for them, using “harmonious designs that continuously empower us instead of distracting and frustrating us.” Reading this, I can’t help but ask: Empower me to do what? Good for me according to whom? And according to what standards? Happiness, productivity? These are the same standards that Frazier uses when designing Walden Two. The idea that I’ve already lost the battle of attention doesn’t sit right with me, an agential being interested in gaining control of my attention rather than simply having it directed in ways that are deemed better for me. — Jenny Odell, How to Do Nothing, 411

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Moral suasion via respect and obligation recruided members to trade new derivatives products. — Donald MacKenzie, An Engine, Not a Camera: How Financial…, 687; Regard-based sanctioning disciplines behavior through opinion while affirming virtue — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 1282; Choosing a valuation metric smuggles in a contested baseline entitlement — Douglas A. Kysar, Regulating from Nowhere: Environmental…, 585 (+1 more)