Modeling Value Disagreement

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)


In this article, monist values are expressed as preferences like in economics and decision making. On the basis of this formalization, various ways of defining value disagreement of agents within a group are investigated. Twelve notions of categorical value disagreement are laid out. Since these are too coarse-grained for many purposes, known distance-based approaches like Kendall’s Tau and Spearman’s footrule are generalized from linear orders to preorders and position-sensitive variants are developed. The account is further generalized to allow for agents with incomplete information. The article ends with a discussion of known limitations of preference-based accounts of values and how these might be overcome by accounting for parity and essential incompleteness. It is also shown that one intuitively compelling notion of disagreement does not give rise to a proper distance measure.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)853–880
Number of pages27
Issue number4
Publication statusPublished - 2015


  • Value; disagreement; parity


Dive into the research topics of 'Modeling Value Disagreement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this