Social Epistemology 21 (4):349 – 368 (2007)
AbstractGroup decisions raise a number of substantial philosophical and methodological issues. We focus on the goal of the group decision exercise itself. We ask: What should be counted as a good group decision-making result? The right decision might not be accessible to, or please, any of the group members. Conversely, a popular decision can fail to be the correct decision. In this paper we discuss what it means for a decision to be "right" and what components are required in a decision process to produce happy decision-makers. Importantly, we discuss how "right" decisions can produce happy decision-makers, or rather, the conditions under which happy decision-makers and right decisions coincide. In a large range of contexts, we argue for the adoption of formal consensus models to assist in the group decision-making process. In particular, we advocate the formal consensus convergence model of Lehrer and Wagner (1981), because a strong case can be made as to why the underlying algorithm produces a result that should make each of the experts in a group happy. Arguably, this model facilitates true consensus, where the group choice is effectively each person's individual choice. We analyse Lehrer and Wagner's algorithm for reaching consensus on group probabilities/utilities in the context of complex decision-making for conservation biology. While many conservation decisions are driven by a search for objective utility/probability distributions (regarding extinction risks of species and the like), other components of conservation management primarily concern the interests of stakeholders. We conclude with cautionary notes on mandating consensus in decision scenarios for which no fact of the matter exists. For such decision settings alternative types of social choice methods are more appropriate.
Similar books and articles
Cultural and ethical effects on managerial decisions: Examined in a throughput model. [REVIEW]Waymond Rodgers & Susana Gago - 2001 - Journal of Business Ethics 31 (4):355 - 367.
Emotional consensus in group decision making.Paul Thagard & Fred W. Kroon - 2006 - Mind and Society 5 (1):85-104.
Ethical decision making: A comparison of computer- supported and face-to-face group. [REVIEW]James J. Cappel & John C. Windsor - 2000 - Journal of Business Ethics 28 (2):95 - 107.
'How do I choose thee? Let me count the ways': A textual analysis of similarities and differences in modes of decision-making in china and the united states.Elke U. Weber, Daniel Ames & Ann-Renee Blais - manuscript
The Importance of Value Diversity in Corporate Life.Michael Santoro - 2003 - Business Ethics Quarterly 13 (4):433-452.
How to reach legitimate decisions when the procedure is controversial.Franz Dietrich - 2005 - Social Choice and Welfare 1 (24):363-393.
Managing Scientific Uncertainty in Medical Decision Making: The Case of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices.J. M. Martinez - 2012 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 37 (1):6-27.
Deliberation and agreement.Christian List - 2008 - In Shawn W. Rosenberg (ed.), Can the People Govern? Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. Palgrave-Macmillan.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Disagreement behind the veil of ignorance.Ryan Muldoon, Chiara Lisciandra, Mark Colyvan, Carlo Martini, Giacomo Sillari & Jan Sprenger - 2014 - Philosophical Studies 170 (3):377-394.
Reasons, Coherence, and Group Rationality.Brian Hedden - 2019 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 99 (3):581-604.
Resolving Disagreement Through Mutual Respect.Carlo Martini, Jan Sprenger & Mark Colyvan - 2013 - Erkenntnis 78 (4):881-898.
Philosophical issues in ecology: Recent trends and future directions.Mark Colyvan, William Grey, Paul E. Griffiths, Jay Odenbaugh, Stefan Linquist & Hugh P. Possingham - 2009 - Ecology and Society 14 (2).
Consensual Decision-Making Among Epistemic Peers.Stephan Hartmann, Carlo Martini & Jan Sprenger - 2009 - Episteme 6 (2):110-129.
References found in this work
Bayes or Bust?: A Critical Examination of Bayesian Confirmation Theory.John Earman - 1992 - MIT Press.
Rational Consensus in Science and Society: A Philosophical and Mathematical Study.Keith Lehrer & Carl Wagner - 1981 - Boston: D. Reidel.
Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared.Christian List & Philip Pettit - 2004 - Synthese 140 (1-2):207 - 235.
Modelling the Moral Dimension of Decisions.Mark Colyvan, Damian Cox & Katie Siobhan Steele - 2010 - Noûs 44 (3):503-529.