Aggregating with reason(s)
- 188 Downloads
Judgment aggregation is naturally applied to the modeling of collective attitudes. In the individual case, we represent agents as having not just beliefs, but also as supporting them with reasons. Can the Judgment Aggregation help model a concept of collective reason? I argue that the resources of the standard judgment aggregation framework are insufficiently general. I develop a generalization of the framework that improves along this dimension. In the new framework, new aggregation rules become available, as well as a natural account of collective reasons.
KeywordsJudgment aggregation Reasons Collective belief
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Cariani, F. (2011). Aggregation rules and epistemic norms. Manuscript. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.Google Scholar
- Chandler, J. (2012). Acceptance and aggregation, and scoring rules. Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-012-9375-6.
- Dietrich F. (2008) Judgment aggregation and the relevance of some issues to others. London School of Economics, LondonGoogle Scholar
- Horty J. F. (2007) Reasons as defaults. Philosophers 7(3): 1–28Google Scholar
- List, C. (2007). When to defer to super-majority testimony— and when not to. Manuscript. London: London School of Economics.Google Scholar
- List C., Pettit P. (2002) Sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89–110Google Scholar
- List C., Puppe C. (2008) Judgment aggregation: A survey. In: Anand P., Puppe C., Pattaniak P. (eds) Oxford handbook of rational and social choice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Miller K. M. (2008) Judgment aggregation and subjective decision-making. Economics and Philosophy 24: 205–231Google Scholar
- Nehring, K. (2005) The (im)possibility of a paretian rational. Manuscript. Davis: UC Davis.Google Scholar
- Pauly M. (2006) Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 65: 132–138Google Scholar
- Pettit P. (2006) When to defer to majority testimony and when not to. Analysis 65: 132–138Google Scholar