Judgment Aggregation and the Discursive Dilemma
نویسنده
چکیده
Judgment aggregation theory investigates which procedures a group could or should use to form collective judgments (‘yes’ or ‘no’) on a given set of propositions or issues, based on the judgments of the group members. How, for instance, should the citizens of a state reach collective judgments on the three propositions that multiculturalism is desirable, that immigration should be promoted, and that the former implies the latter? And how should a jury in court form collective judgments on the propositions that the defendant has broken the contract, that this contract was legally valid, and that the defendant is liable to pay damages?
منابع مشابه
The Doctrinal Paradox , the Discursive Dilemma , and Logical Aggregation
Judgment aggregation theory, or rather, as we conceive of it here, logical aggregation theory generalizes social choice theory by having the aggregation rule bear on judgments of all kinds instead of merely preference judgments. It derives from Kornhauser and Sager’s doctrinal paradox and List and Pettit’s discursive dilemma, two problems that we distinguish emphatically here. The current theor...
متن کاملBelief merging and the discursive dilemma: an argument-based account to paradoxes of judgment aggregation
The aggregation of individual judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a collective decision on the same propositions is called judgment aggregation. Literature in social choice and political theory has claimed that judgment aggregation raises serious concerns. For example, consider a set of premises and a conclusion where the latter is logically equivalent to the former. When ma...
متن کاملA quantitative discursive dilemma
The typical judgment aggregation problem in economics and other elds is the following: A group of people has to judge/estimate the value of an uncertain variable y which is a function of k other variables, i.e. y = D(x1; :::xk) . We analyze when it is possible for the group to arrive at collective judgements on the variables that respect D. We consider aggregators that ful ll Arrows IIA-condi...
متن کاملJudgment Aggregation
Judgment aggregation theory generalizes social choice theory by having the aggregation rule bear on judgments of all kinds instead of barely judgments of preference. The paper briefly sums it up, privileging the variant that formalizes judgment by a logical syntax. The theory derives from Kornhauser and Sager’s doctrinal paradox and Pettit’s discursive dilemma, which List and Pettit turned into...
متن کاملConsistent Judgement Aggregation: The Truth-Functional Case1
Generalizing the celebrated “discursive dilemma,” we analyze judgement aggregation problems in which a group of agents independently votes on a set of complex propositions (the “conclusions”) and on a set of “premises” by which the conclusions are truth-functionally determined. We show that for conclusionand premise-based aggregation rules to be mutually consistent, the aggregation must always ...
متن کامل