Nudge for good
The ethical mandate that choice architecture should serve the chooser, not the architect.
What it means
'Nudge for good' is the guiding ethical principle, urged by the originators of nudge theory, that interventions which steer behavior by redesigning choice architecture should be deployed transparently and in the interest of the people being nudged, not to exploit them. It draws the line between a legitimate nudge and a manipulative 'sludge' or dark pattern: a good nudge preserves freedom of choice, is easy to opt out of, would survive public scrutiny if disclosed, and helps people achieve goals they themselves endorse. The principle responds to the central objection to libertarian paternalism — that the same psychological levers used to increase saving or organ donation can be turned to enrich the architect — by insisting that the chooser's welfare, judged by their own lights, is the test. Critics counter that 'good' is contestable and that even well-meaning nudges can be paternalistic or erode autonomy, so transparency and the availability of easy reversal become crucial safeguards. It matters because the legitimacy of the entire choice-architecture enterprise rests on this distinction.
Examples
Defaulting employees into a pension plan they can leave at any time nudges for good; defaulting them into a paid subscription that is deliberately hard to cancel is sludge.
A bank that automatically flags the cheaper account you already qualify for nudges for good; one that quietly leaves loyal customers on a worse rate turns the same inertia against them.
A cookie banner with equally easy 'accept all' and 'reject all' buttons respects the chooser; one where refusing takes four clicks through a menu is sludge wearing a nudge's clothes.
First described in Thaler & Sunstein; Thaler's maxim 'nudge for good' (2010s).