Nudging and obesity : how to get rid of paternalism?

This paper reflects upon the conditions how ‘nudging’ can change individual health choices without being paternalistic and therefore can be defined as an instrument of social justice? So many problems we are facing in today’s nursing are situated at the intersection of autonomy and heteronomy, i.e. why well informed and autonomous people make unhealthy lifestyle choices. If people do not choose what they want, this is not simply caused by their lack of character or capability, but also by the fact that absolute autonomy is impossible; also autonomous individuals are ‘contaminated’ by heteronymous aspects, by influences from ‘outside’. In an earlier article I made an analysis of my neologism 'oughtonomy' to support the thesis that when it comes down to human existence, autonomy and heteronomy are intertwined, more than they are merely opposites. Although nudging might be of help in many nursing settings, we should evaluate it with the same criticism as we judge upon paternalism. Despite the potential of nudging for nursing, there is a risk to put the nurse again in the position of the paternalistic outsider who knows how people should behave. But maybe the awareness of the oughtonomous decisions we all make in our lives, can help us to understand why people act mindless in some situations or why we choose what we choose. Knowing this is one thing, giving people the authority of an expert to know what is better off for others, another. Despite the potential of the last, the former concept does not legitimate paternalistic interferences in patient’s lifestyle

The progress of society : an inquiry into an 'old-fashioned' thesis of Walter Bagehot

The nineteenth century saw the rise of Darwinism as a new paradigm for the study of nature and man mans an integral part thereof. Many scholars were intent on removing the abstract principles and universal truths of early modern philosophy in favour of understanding man's nature through more scientifically-based methods. Walter Bagehot (1826-1877) was one of the leading exponents of this view. Our focus is on one of Bagehot's famous books, Physics and Politics, or thoughts on the application of the principles of 'natural selection' and 'inheritance' to political society. Physics and Politics can be seen as one of the most remarkable attempts to think the intertwining of politics and Darwinism. In our paper, we want to examine Bagehot's efforts to apply natural sciences to politics and philosophy and his focus on progress and the idea that such progress is inherited over generations. We want to examine in what way a Darwinian framework of thinking is actually used in Physics and Politics. Our conclusion is that perhaps Physics and Politics established a framework for the application of biological principles to political society, but it definitely did not do so for the application of Darwin's principle of natural selection

Sense, existence and justice, or, how to live in a secular world?

It has been taken for granted that in western modernity we are dealing with a secularised world, an atheistic world where religion is no longer reigning the public sphere. In other words: a world where sense lies outside the world towards a world where sense is situated within it. If we follow the line of thought French philosopher Jean-Luc Nancy sets out in his books The Sense of the World and Dis-closure, we have to think world not as what has its sense within itself, but as what is sense itself. To live in a secular world, means to live in a world which is sense, a world that has become responsible for itself but never closes in itself. Nancy, thereby inspired by Martin Heidegger, claims that in a secularised world it is no longer a question of whether the world has sense, but that the world is sense. If we want to be atheists today, Nancy concludes, we no longer have to do with the question, “why is there something in general?” but with the answer, “there is something, and that alone makes sense

Over het nut en nadeel van sportethiek

Ethics in sports has become more popular. When it comes down to ethics of sports, it is ethics’ explicit ambition to evaluate sports in a critical way and to ask for what ought to be. One could ask, with Nietzsche, what it means for ethics to reflect upon sports and what its pro’s and con’s are? Not only this question deals with what ethics has to say about sports, but also how it aims to endorse the critical potential of its reflection to sports as such. In our paper, we defend the thesis that if ethics of sports has a task to fulfill, it is not in telling sportsmen and sportswomen what they ought to do (or not) and running the risk of becoming a procedural instance which is only needed to legitimate certain practices of sports. What is needed, most and for all, is to offer society a forum of profound reflection upon sports in its societal context. We illustrate this with the outline of two cases, one on cyclist Tom Boonen and one on brutal tackles in football

Food Taxes: A New Holy Grail?

In an effort to reduce the growing prevalence of overweight and obesity, food taxes have been introduced in several European countries, the so-called ‘obesitax’. As yet little evidence is at hand, policy measures are being taken to counterweight the consumption of unhealthy food or the increasing diet-related diseases. Several questions need to be discussed, starting from a general perspective: can food taxes become an appropriate and just policy measure to reduce overweight and obesity and therefore increase consumer’s health? The implementation of an effective and fair food tax is an exercise riddled with uncertainty. Not only is there a need for evidence on the health and economic impact of food taxes, we also have to think about a conceptual and ethical discussion concerning the balance between health imperatives and public health on the one hand, and social and ethical standards on the other hand