David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Economics and Philosophy 18 (1):89-110 (2002)
Suppose that the members of a group each hold a rational set of judgments on some interconnected questions, and imagine that the group itself has to form a collective, rational set of judgments on those questions. How should it go about dealing with this task? We argue that the question raised is subject to a difficulty that has recently been noticed in discussion of the doctrinal paradox in jurisprudence. And we show that there is a general impossibility theorem that that difficulty illustrates. Our paper describes this impossibility result and provides an exploration of its significance. The result naturally invites comparison with Kenneth Arrow's famous theorem (Arrow, 1963 and 1984; Sen, 1970) and we elaborate that comparison in a companion paper (List and Pettit, 2002). The paper is in four sections. The first section documents the need for various groups to aggregate its members' judgments; the second presents the discursive paradox; the third gives an informal statement of the more general impossibility result; the formal proof is presented in an appendix. The fourth section, finally, discusses some escape routes from that impossibility.
|Keywords||Judgment aggregation Social choice theory Propositional logic Doctrinal paradox Discursive dilemma Arrow's theorem|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Fabienne Peter (2007). Rawls' Idea of Public Reason and Democratic Legitimacy. Journal of International Political Theory 3 (1):129-143.
Christian List (2012). The Theory of Judgment Aggregation: An Introductory Review. Synthese 187 (1):179-207.
Gabriella Pigozzi (2006). Belief Merging and the Discursive Dilemma: An Argument-Based Account to Paradoxes of Judgment Aggregation. [REVIEW] Synthese 152 (2):285 - 298.
Marc Pauly & Martin van Hees (2006). Logical Constraints on Judgement Aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 35 (6):569 - 585.
Philip Pettit (2001). Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma. Noûs 35 (s1):268-299.
Similar books and articles
Christian List (2008). Which Worlds Are Possible? A Judgment Aggregation Problem. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37 (1):57 - 65.
Bruce Chapman (2002). Rational Aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1 (3):337-354.
Christian List (2012). Judgment Aggregation: A Short Introduction. In U. Maki (ed.), Handbook of the Philosophy of Economics. Elsevier
Christian List (2011). Group Communication and the Transformation of Judgments: An Impossibility Result. Journal of Political Philosophy 19 (1):1-27.
Christian List & Philip Pettit (2006). Group Agency and Supervenience. Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (S1):85-105.
Ruth Weintraub (2011). A Solution to the Discursive Dilemma. Philosophical Studies 152 (2):181 - 188.
Daniele Porello (2010). Ranking Judgments in Arrow's Setting. Synthese 173 (2):199 - 210.
Christian List & Philip Pettit (2004). Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared. Synthese 140 (1/2):207 - 235.
Christian List & Philip Pettit (2004). Aggregating Sets of Judgments: Two Impossibility Results Compared. Synthese 140 (1-2):207 - 235.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads122 ( #32,357 of 1,911,616 )
Recent downloads (6 months)26 ( #26,634 of 1,911,616 )
How can I increase my downloads?