Philosophical Studies

, Volume 170, Issue 3, pp 377–394 | Cite as

Disagreement behind the veil of ignorance

  • Ryan Muldoon
  • Chiara Lisciandra
  • Mark Colyvan
  • Carlo Martini
  • Giacomo Sillari
  • Jan Sprenger
Article

Abstract

In this paper we argue that there is a kind of moral disagreement that survives the Rawlsian veil of ignorance. While a veil of ignorance eliminates sources of disagreement stemming from self-interest, it does not do anything to eliminate deeper sources of disagreement. These disagreements not only persist, but transform their structure once behind the veil of ignorance. We consider formal frameworks for exploring these differences in structure between interested and disinterested disagreement, and argue that consensus models offer us a solution concept for disagreements behind the veil of ignorance.

Keywords

Rawls Veil of ignorance Disagreement Consensus modeling Bargaining 

References

  1. Babcock, L., Loewenstein, G., Issacharoff, S., & Camerer, C. (1995). Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining. The American Economic Review, 85(5), 1337–1343.Google Scholar
  2. Babcock, L., & Loewenstein, G. (1997). Explaining bargaining impasse: The role of self-serving biases. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 11(1), 109–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bicchieri, C., & Mercier, H. (2013). Self-serving biases and public justifications in trust games. Synthese, 190(5), 909–922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binmore, K. (1994). Game theory and the social contract, Vol. 1: Playing fair. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Binmore, K. (1998). Game theory and the social contract, Vol. 2: Just playing. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Davis, J. H. (1973). Group decision and social interaction: A theory of social decision schemes. Psychological Review, 80, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeGroot, M. (1974). Reaching a consensus. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 69, 118–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. French, J. R. P. Jr. (1956). A formal theory of social power. Psychological Review, 63(3), 181–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Hegselmann, R., & Krause, U. (2002). Opinion Dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, 5(3). http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/5/3/2.html.
  11. Lehrer, K. (1976). When rational disagreement is impossible. Noûs, 10(3), 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lehrer, K., & Wagner, C. (1981). Rational consensus in science and society. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Martini, C., Sprenger, J., & Colyvan, M. (2012). Resolving disagreement through mutual respect. Erkenntnis.Google Scholar
  14. Nash, J. (1950). Equilibrium points in N-person games. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 36(1), 48–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pronin, E., Lin, D., & Ross, L. (2002). The bias blind spot: Perceptions of bias in self versus others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(3), 369–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Rawls, J. (2005). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Regan, H. M., Colyvan M., & Markovchick-Nicholls, L. (2006). A formal model for consensus and negotiation in environmental management. Journal of Environmental Management, 80(2), 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sen, A. (2009). The idea of justice. Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  20. Steele, K., Regan, H. M., Colyvan, M., & Burgman, M. A. (2007). Right decisions or happy decision makers?. Social Epistemology, 21(4), 349–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wagner, C. (1978). Consensus through respect: A model of rational group decision-making. Philosophical Studies, 34, 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan Muldoon
    • 1
  • Chiara Lisciandra
    • 2
  • Mark Colyvan
    • 3
  • Carlo Martini
    • 2
  • Giacomo Sillari
    • 4
  • Jan Sprenger
    • 5
  1. 1.Philosophy, Politics and Economics ProgramUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA
  2. 2.Department of Political and Economic Studies, Finnish Centre of Excellence in the Philosophy of the Social SciencesUniversity of HelsinkiHelsinkiFinland
  3. 3.Department of PhilosophyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia
  4. 4.Department of Political ScienceLUISS Guido CarliRomeItaly
  5. 5.Tilburg Center for Logic, General Ethics and Philosophy of ScienceTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations