Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
  1. Home
  2. Synthese
  3. Article
A computer simulation of the argument from disagreement
Download PDF
Your article has downloaded

Similar articles being viewed by others

Slider with three articles shown per slide. Use the Previous and Next buttons to navigate the slides or the slide controller buttons at the end to navigate through each slide.

A diachronic perspective on peer disagreement in veritistic social epistemology

14 September 2018

Erik J. Olsson

Some lessons from simulations of scientific disagreements

30 March 2019

Dunja Šešelja

The Surprising Truth About Disagreement

08 June 2020

Neil Levy

Disagreement and Deliberation: Evidence from Three Deliberative Mini-Publics

10 July 2021

Kimmo Grönlund, Kaisa Herne, … Peter Söderlund

On the rational resolution of (deep) disagreements

23 June 2022

Eugen Octav Popa

Living with Moral Disagreement

30 June 2020

Roger Crisp

Consensus Building and Its Epistemic Conditions

22 April 2019

Michael H. G. Hoffmann

The epistemic significance of political disagreement

17 May 2018

Bjørn G. Hallsson

Moral Disagreement and Higher-Order Evidence

16 November 2019

Klemens Kappel & Frederik J. Andersen

Download PDF
  • Open Access
  • Published: 16 October 2010

A computer simulation of the argument from disagreement

  • Johan E. Gustafsson1 &
  • Martin Peterson2 

Synthese volume 184, pages 387–405 (2012)Cite this article

  • 781 Accesses

  • 3 Citations

  • 1 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Abstract

In this paper we shed new light on the Argument from Disagreement by putting it to test in a computer simulation. According to this argument widespread and persistent disagreement on ethical issues indicates that our moral opinions are not influenced by any moral facts, either because no such facts exist or because they are epistemically inaccessible or inefficacious for some other reason. Our simulation shows that if our moral opinions were influenced at least a little bit by moral facts, we would quickly have reached consensus, even if our moral opinions were affected by factors such as false authorities, external political shifts, and random processes. Therefore, since no such consensus has been reached, the simulation gives us increased reason to take seriously the Argument from Disagreement. Our conclusion is however not conclusive; the simulation also indicates what assumptions one has to make in order to reject the Argument from Disagreement. The simulation algorithm we use builds on the work of Hegselmann and Krause (J Artif Soc Social Simul 5(3); 2002, J Artif Soc Social Simul 9(3), 2006).

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the most common mistakes and prepare your manuscript for journal editors.

Learn more

References

  • Boyd R. N. (1988) How to be a moral realist. In: Sayre-McCord G. (eds) Essays on moral realism. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY, pp 181–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Brink D. O. (1989) Moral realism and the foundations of ethics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann N. (1932) Ethics. George Allen & Unwin Ltd, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegselmann R., Krause U. (2002) Opinion dynamics and bounded confidence models, analysis, and simulation. Journal of Artifical Societies and Social Simulation 5(3): 1–33

    Google Scholar 

  • Hegselmann R., Krause U. (2006) Truth and cognitive division of labour: First steps towards a computer aided social epistemology. Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation 9(3): 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause U. (2008) Compromise, consensus and the iteration of means. Elemente der Mathematik 63: 1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Lorenz, J. (2007). Repeated averaging and bounded confidence modeling, analysis and simulation of continuous opinion dynamics. PhD thesis, Universität Bremen.

  • Lorenz, J., & Lorenz, D. A. (2008) On conditions for convergence to consensus. Arxiv preprint arXiv:08032211.

  • Mackie J. L. (1977) Ethics: Inventing right and wrong. Penguin, Harmondsworth

    Google Scholar 

  • Shafer-Landau R. (2003) Moral realism: A defence. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sturgeon N. L. (1985) Moral explanations. In: Copp D., Zimmerman D. (eds) Morality, reason, and truth: New essays on the foundations of ethics. Rowman & Allanheld, Totowa, pp 49–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Tersman F. (2006) Moral disagreement. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Early versions of this paper were presented to audiences at conferences and seminars at the University of Colorado at Boulder, Stockholm University, Uppsala University, Lund University, Luleå University of Technology, Delft University of Technology, and the Buenos Aires Metaethics Workshop. We would like to thank the participants for very helpful comments. We also wish to thank two anonymous reviewers for equally helpful comments.

Open Access

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Philosophy, Royal Institute of Technology, Teknikringen 78-B, 100 44, Stockholm, Sweden

    Johan E. Gustafsson

  2. Section for Philosophy and Ethics, Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O Box 513, 5600, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

    Martin Peterson

Authors
  1. Johan E. Gustafsson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Martin Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johan E. Gustafsson.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gustafsson, J.E., Peterson, M. A computer simulation of the argument from disagreement. Synthese 184, 387–405 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9822-3

Download citation

  • Received: 13 January 2010

  • Accepted: 27 September 2010

  • Published: 16 October 2010

  • Issue Date: February 2012

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-010-9822-3

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Hegselmann–Krause
  • Disagreement
  • Simulation
  • Meta-ethics
  • Moral realism
  • Opinion dynamics
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the most common mistakes and prepare your manuscript for journal editors.

Learn more

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.