Setting the stage and coproducing the process

An initial phase will involve selection and preliminary characterisation of the value conflict to be explored, and identification of a relevantly diverse range of perspectives, forms of expertise and experience. It will likely also require the appointment of a trusted facilitator who will instigate relevant and culturally appropriate activities to foster empathy and mutual understanding. An essential part of this first phase will be addressing the second and third requirements described above that is, the cooperative design of and formal commitment to a structured process with the potential to be transformative, the collaborative definition of criteria for evaluation and agreement on and commitment to the two required coproduced outcomes—a coauthored publication and agreement to undertake, and evaluate at least one normatively significant collective action as a consequence of the process.

Value topography exploration

The precise methodology to be adopted will be shaped by the outcome of phase I. However, it is likely that this will take the form of a facilitated collaborative exploration of the value topography of the problem under investigation comprising three main interconnected and overlapping tasks. One will be a comprehensive value mapping in which the moral values at stake will be elucidated and clarified. This may involve input by humanities scholars and social scientists to provide historical–cultural context, and use of artistic methods to visualise the values landscape—from which new shared understandings or awareness of previously unexpected overlaps may emerge. A complementary task will be factual topography assessment in which agreed and contested factual claims are identified collaboratively. Making progress here will involve consulting diverse sources (see ‘Fake news and misinformation’ section below for more discussion on this). In some cases, where contested factual claims are amenable to testing, targeted ‘adversarial collaboration’ along the lines advocated by Kahneman et al might be considered. A third task will involve delineating areas of agreement and persistent disagreement, mapping out relevant moral arguments, and potentially engaging in activities to adjust ethical positioning and establish some new areas of consensus. The goal here is not necessarily to reach full consensus—though this may be welcomed where it emerges—but rather to deepen understanding, clarify differences, identify any areas of overlapping consensus and explore possibilities for cooperation or compromise. As in previous tasks, the use of creative methods may usefully enable further refinement and understanding of the ethical terrain.

Next normative step formulation

Following and building on the exploration described above, phase III will involve a shift in focus to the codesign of possible practical ethical steps towards achieving a more ethically robust position. This facilitated process, which will in many cases be contentious and will always depend on goodwill and mutual respect on all sides, will likely include consideration of historical and cross-cultural examples and the use of creative methods to identify potential paths and ways of acknowledging trade-offs involved in the different available options. The endpoint of this phase will be agreement of a normatively significant step and of requirements for its evaluation. As mentioned above, a normatively significant step might range from a minor policy adjustment or shift in public engagement all the way through to changes or policy interventions of a much more significant kind. It might also, on occasion, involve a choice to refrain from action. The requirement is that it is agreed to constitute a step towards a more ethically robust position.

Implementation, reflection and evaluation

The final phase of each iteration of the process will be the practical implementation of the step and its observation, documentation, and evaluation according to pre-agreed criteria across the various ethically significant dimensions identified in the previous phase. In all cases, the process will involve the completion of pre-agreed tasks such as coauthoring of a paper or other pre-agreed output reflecting on the ethical path traversed, capturing enduring value disagreements that is, the value topography, and noting any shifts in position. Future iterations of the adversarial cooperation process may be undertaken as needed.

The approach outlined here frames the engagement with moral value conflicts as a continuous, iterative process of ethical improvement. It emphasises the importance of careful, incremental progress while maintaining flexibility and openness to different perspectives. By conceptualising the process in this way, a structured yet adaptive framework is provided for navigating complex ethical terrain, suitable for both theoretical exploration and practical decision-making in pluralistic contexts. A helpful feature of this model is that it does not imply an expectation that the process will, or even ought to, reach a point at which there is no longer significant value difference or disagreement. Indeed, antagonistic cooperation, with its emphasis of the creative and dynamic emergence of new cultural forms and identities, suggests that this would often be undesirable as an outcome. Neither does it assume that there will not be setbacks such as periodic losses of confidence among participants in a process where this does not yield immediate, dramatic changes. To address these challenges, the process will need to include regular reflexive pauses to reassess the broader ethical landscape and long-term goals and will need to maintain open communication with all stakeholders about the nature and intent of this gradual approach.

Ethical considerations in the uses of adversarial cooperation

Any model of adversarial cooperation capable of commanding well-founded trust and confidence will need to be grounded in ethical values and commitments ensuring that it remains true to the spirit of good-faith engagement and mutual respect that underlies both adversarial collaboration and antagonistic cooperation. The ability of adversarial cooperation approaches to productively mediate polarisation and value conflict will hinge on paying careful attention to power dynamics, inclusivity and cultural difference. It will be vital to ensure that historically marginalised voices are centred, not drowned out by dominant scientific and bioethical discourses.25 Participants will need to represent the range of affected communities, not just credentialed experts. It will be important for it to recognise that not all participants will have equal access to platforms, resources or institutional support, and that these imbalances can shape the terms and outcomes of dialogue in ways that may reinforce rather than challenge existing inequities. It will be vital to actively work to level the playing field and amplify marginalised voices, so that the benefits of productive disagreement are not reserved only for the privileged. The impacts of proposed interventions on disparately situated groups will need to be rigorously assessed to guard against unintended harms.

Another key ethical consideration is the need to balance the value of productive disagreement with the importance of social cohesion and mutual understanding. While methods of adversarial cooperation can lead to new insights and progress, they also risk exacerbating divisions and eroding trust if not approached with care. It is crucial to ensure that these practices are guided by a genuine commitment to good-faith dialogue and intellectual humility rather than devolving into bad faith point-scoring or entrenched factionalism. This means that those engaging in these forms of dialogue have a moral obligation to strive for empathy and to truly seek to understand the perspectives and motivations of those they disagree with. They must be willing to challenge their own assumptions and biases, and to remain open to the possibility of changing their minds in the light of new evidence or arguments—epistemic humility. At the same time, they must be able to robustly advocate for their own positions and values, while maintaining respect for their intellectual opponents as human beings deserving of dignity and consideration.

Relatedly, it is going to be important to consider the potential unintended consequences of adversarial cooperation in the realm of moral and social debate. While these approaches can help to surface new perspectives and challenge entrenched positions, they may also risk giving undue legitimacy to harmful views, or contributing to a climate of relativism and uncertainty that undermines the pursuit of ethical progress. Those engaging in these practices have a responsibility to exercise judgement and discretion in deciding which perspectives are worthy of serious engagement, and to develop respectful ways of identifying and discussing ideas that are fundamentally incompatible with the success of adversarial cooperation. Ongoing self-reflection and adjustment in response to critical feedback will be essential. I discuss this further in the Fake news and misinformation section below.

Tensions between substantive and procedural values

Ultimately, the key to ethically deploying these methods in the context of value conflict may lie in maintaining a careful balance between intellectual openness and moral conviction. This is no easy task. It requires ongoing reflection, humility and a willingness to grapple with difficult tensions and trade-offs. This points to an inherent tension at the heart of any model of adversarial cooperation. On one hand, adversarial cooperation is premised on the idea of participants engaging openly and in good faith with perspectives that differ from their own and being willing to subject their own beliefs and assumptions to critical scrutiny. This requires a degree of intellectual humility and flexibility, and a willingness to entertain the possibility that one’s own views may be wrong or incomplete. On the other hand, its success depends on certain core values and commitments. The question, then, is how to reconcile the openness and flexibility demanded by adversarial cooperation with a commitment to certain non-negotiable principles essential to its meaningful functioning. If we hold too tightly to our core convictions or if the set is too expansive, we risk closing ourselves off to the very possibility of productive engagement with those who see things differently. But if we are too quick to compromise on our fundamental values, or if the set is too small, we risk losing the moral and intellectual integrity of the process.

There is no easy answer to this dilemma, and different practitioners may strike the balance in different ways.26 One possible approach is to distinguish between the substance of core principles and the specific ways in which those principles are interpreted and applied in practice. In other words, we might remain firmly committed to certain non-negotiable values such as respect for persons and epistemic humility while recognising that there can be legitimate disagreement and debate about how these values should be understood and put into practice in particular contexts. This allows for a degree of openness and flexibility in the realm of policy and implementation, while still maintaining a strong foundation of shared moral and intellectual commitments. Another approach is to view adversarial cooperation not as a means of resolving or eliminating fundamental value differences, but rather as a way of managing and navigating those differences in a constructive way.² The goal, on this view, is not to arrive at a final consensus or to persuade others to abandon their core convictions, but rather to find ways of coexisting and working together despite our disagreements. This might involve seeking out areas of common ground or overlapping consensus where possible, while also acknowledging and respecting the ways in which our fundamental beliefs and values may diverge. It means being willing to engage in ongoing dialogue and negotiation, while also maintaining the integrity of our own moral and intellectual commitments.

Ultimately, the tension between and interdependence of adversarial cooperation and non-negotiable values is a real and ongoing one that requires careful navigation and constant balancing, and a willingness by all parties to live with a degree of uncertainty and discomfort. But by approaching this tension with honesty, good faith and a deep sense of ethical responsibility, we can strive to create spaces and practices of engagement that allow for productive disagreement and collaboration across difference.

Fake news and misinformation

A particularly intense contemporary problem for the successful implementation of any version of adversarial cooperation arises out of the pervasiveness of misinformation and disinformation.27–30 While the approach emphasises the importance of treating opponents as legitimate adversaries, it also presumes a certain baseline of shared factual reality and commitment to good-faith argumentation. When one or more sides of a debate are operating from false beliefs or deliberately spreading misinformation, this has the potential to undermine the conditions for productive agonistic contestation. Advocates for adversarial cooperation will likely be strongly supportive of efforts to create a healthier epistemic environment in which the contestation necessary for adversarial cooperation can productively occur. This might include a range of measures to improve the information ecosystem and combat misinformation, such as funding for public media, support for fact-checking organisations or regulations on social media platforms. However, the problem of misinformation is not likely to be addressed in the short term.

Against this background, advocates of adversarial cooperation would emphasise the importance of continually seeking ways to engage across differences and find productive paths forward, even in the face of serious epistemic divides. This may require difficult judgement calls and a willingness to set boundaries against truly bad faith actors. But the underlying commitment to pluralism, coexistence and the transformative potential of conflict should remain. The goal is to create the conditions under which passionate but constructive contestation is possible, even if this is an ongoing struggle in an age of misinformation. There are likely to be many different ways in which adversarial cooperation might navigate this tension. These may include: (1) distinguishing between good-faith and bad-faith actors—not everyone who believes or spreads false information is doing so maliciously. Some may simply be misinformed or caught up in epistemic bubbles. An adversarial cooperation approach could emphasise the importance of engaging with good-faith actors to try to establish a shared factual basis, while being more willing to marginalise or exclude bad-faith actors who knowingly spread disinformation. (2) Focusing on the identification and development of shared underlying values and concerns: even when people hold demonstrably false beliefs, there are often real values, concerns and experiences underlying those beliefs.31 An adversarial cooperation approach could focus on engaging with and validating those underlying sentiments while firmly decoupling them from the false beliefs. This could involve affirming the legitimacy of someone’s fear or sense of unfairness, for example, while challenging the specific misinformation they call on. (3) Having explicit conversations about what the criteria ought to be for legitimate expertise and reliable sources of information with the aim of both understanding the other’s conception of knowledge and expertise and also of potentially identifying a shared subset of sources.

The need to make decisions and develop policy

There are important practical challenges—and challenges of credibility—in implementing adversarial cooperation in real-world contexts where decisions must be made and policies enacted, often under significant time and resource constraints. The tension between the open-ended, process-oriented nature of adversarial cooperation described above and the pragmatic demands of decision-making is a real one, and navigating it effectively will—at least on some occasions—be essential to success. On one level, this tension reflects a fundamental dilemma of any moral engagement in a pluralistic democracy. However, this does not obviate the need for legitimate and justified decision-making. There is an inherent trade-off between the inclusivity and epistemic humility required to engage different perspectives authentically, and the closure and decisiveness needed to translate moral deliberation into collective action. If openness is prioritised too heavily, there is the risk of a kind of moral paralysis or relativism that fails to resolve pressing issues. But if there is a rush to decide and enforce uniform policies this creates a risk of marginalising dissenting voices and fracturing social cohesion.

Adversarial cooperation offers some strategies for managing this dilemma, but they are not panaceas. The techniques outlined above can help to surface underlying interests and generate creative solutions that integrate diverse concerns. They may also help to legitimise and channel moral contestation in productive directions. And methods from the arts and humanities can foster the empathy and mutual understanding needed to maintain social cohesion amidst ongoing disagreement. But ultimately, practising adversarial cooperation in the real world will require all involved to exercise judgement and balance competing considerations in context-dependent ways. Striking the right balance between openness and resolution in value-based decision-making will require an ongoing process of experimentation, learning and adaptation. It will depend on cultivating a democratic ethic that values both moral pluralism and the need for cooperative action in the face of pressing challenges. This is not a simple or one-time task, but an enduring responsibility as our social and technological contexts evolve. Adversarial cooperation offers a promising framework for this effort, but realising its potential will require sustained creativity and commitment from bioethicists, policymakers, and citizens alike.

In the development and refining of adversarial cooperation approaches it will also be essential to engage deeply with the practical wisdom— the ‘moral craft’—of those on the frontlines of ethical decision-making.32 By learning from different experiences and perspectives, we can hope to craft strategies that are both principled and pragmatic—that honour the depth of our moral differences while still enabling us to act together in pursuit of the common good.