Judgment Aggregation as Maximization of Epistemic and Social Utility

نویسنده

  • Szymon Klarman
چکیده

We restate the problem of judgment aggregation and approach it using the decisiontheoretic framework applied by I. Levi to modeling acts of rational acceptance in science. We propose a method of aggregation built on the concepts of epistemic and social utility of accepting a collective judgment, which accounts for such parameters as the factual truth of the propositions, reliability of agents, information content (completeness) of possible collective judgments and the level of agreement between the agents. We argue that the expected utility of accepting a judgment depends on the degree to which all those objectives are satisfied and that groups of rational agents aim at maximizing it while solving judgment aggregation problems.

برای دانلود رایگان متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

A Supplier Selection Model for Social Responsible Supply Chain

Due to the importance of supplier selection issue in supply chain management (SCM) and ,also,  the increasing tendency of organizations to their social responsibilities, In this paper, we survey the supplier selection issue as a multi objective problem while considering the factor of corporate social responsibility (CSR) as a mathematical parameter. The purpose of this paper is to design a mode...

متن کامل

Belief Merging and Judgment Aggregation in Fuzzy Setting

Social choice theory defines “preference aggregation” as forming collective preferences over a given set of alternatives. Likewise, “judgment aggregation” pertains to forming collective judgments on a given set of logically interrelated propositions. This paper extends beyond classical propositional logic into the realm of general multivalued logic, so that we can handle realistic collective de...

متن کامل

Democracy’s Wisdom: An Aristotelian Middle Way for Collective Judgment

Asatisfactory model of decision-making in an epistemic democracy must respect democratic values, while advancing citizens’ interests, by taking account of relevant knowledge about the world. Analysis of passages in Aristotle and legislative process in classical Athens points to a “middle way” between independent-guess aggregation and deliberation: an epistemic approach to decision-making that o...

متن کامل

Formalising rationality via coherence and aggregation: A generalised Bayesian approach

In epistemology, the rationality of a given belief system is often seen as virtually equivalent to its epistemic justifiability (cf. e.g. BAUMANN 2006). And while there is no universal consensus about the structure of epistemic justification, even epistemologists who reject coherentism will concede that coherence forms an integral component thereof (cf. e.g. AUDI 2011). We propose to study rati...

متن کامل

Beyond "utilitarianism": maximizing the clinical impact of moral judgment research.

The use of hypothetical moral dilemmas--which pit utilitarian considerations of welfare maximization against emotionally aversive "personal" harms--has become a widespread approach for studying the neuropsychological correlates of moral judgment in healthy subjects, as well as in clinical populations with social, cognitive, and affective deficits. In this article, we propose that a refinement o...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

عنوان ژورنال:

دوره   شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2009