Possibly the most important argument for the permissibility of choice architecture is the inevitability argument (IA), which states that if choice contexts are to inevitably influence individuals in some way, they should be arranged to best promote their welfare. Opponents point out a moral difference between influence from unmodified environments (including environments designed without any thought given to behavioral influence) and environments modified specifically to produce behavioral effects. Only the latter are said to subvert the will of those affected, and thereby raise concerns pertaining to manipulation, mistreatment of rational agency, etc. We argue, however, that if choice architects can reliably predict the behavioral effects of both the unmodified environment and available alternatives, the moral difference between these environments seems insignificant. In such cases, one version of the IA persists. This version establishes the permissibility of choice architecture in circumstances of reliable prediction, but is itself neutral toward available normative directions.
