A Liberal Impossibility of Abstract Argumentation
نویسنده
چکیده
In abstract argumentation, where arguments are viewed as abstract entities with a binary defeat relation among them, a set of agents may assign individual members the right to determine the collective defeat relation on some pairs of arguments. I prove that even under a minimal condition of rationality, the assignment of rights to two or more agents is inconsistent with the unanimity principle, whereby unanimously accepted defeat or defend relation among arguments are collectively accepted. This result expands the domain of liberal impossibility beyond preference aggregation and judgment aggregation, and highlights this impossibility as an inherent tension between individual rights and collective consensus.
منابع مشابه
Comparing the Expressiveness of Argumentation Semantics
Understanding the expressiveness of a formalism is undoubtedly an important part of understanding its possibilities and limitations. Translations between different formalisms have proven to be valuable tools for understanding this very expressiveness. In this work we complement recent investigations of the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics for Dung’s abstract argumentation framewo...
متن کاملTreading a Fine Line: Characterisations and Impossibilities for Liberal Principles in Innitely-Lived Societies1
This paper extends the analysis of liberal principles in social choice recently proposed by Mariotti and Veneziani (2009a) to in nitely-lived societies. First, some novel characterisations of inegalitarian leximax social welfare relations are derived based on the Individual Bene t Principle (IBP), which incorporates a liberal, non-interfering view of society. This is surprising because the IBP ...
متن کاملBasic influence diagrams and the liberal stable semantics
This paper is concerned with the general problem of constructing decision tables and more specifically, with the identification of all possible outcomes of decisions. We introduce and propose basic influence diagrams as a simple way of describing problems of decision making under strict uncertainty. We then establish a correspondence between basic influence diagrams and symmetric generalised as...
متن کاملComparing the Expressiveness of Argumentation Semantics1
In this work we complement recent investigations of the intertranslatability of argumentation semantics. Our focus is on the expressiveness of argumentation semantics and thus we expand the area of interest beyond efficiently computable translations. To this end we provide new translations between semantics as well as new translational impossibility results. This allows us to draw a hierarchy f...
متن کامل