Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Aggregating with reason(s)

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Cariani, F. (2011). Aggregation rules and epistemic norms. Manuscript. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.

  • Cariani F., Pauly M., Snyder J. (2008) Decision framing in judgment aggregation. Synthese 163: 1–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chandler, J. (2012). Acceptance and aggregation, and scoring rules. Erkenntnis. doi:10.1007/s10670-012-9375-6.

  • Chapman B. (2002) Rational aggregation. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 1(3): 337–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F. (2007) A generalized model of judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 28: 529–565

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F. (2008) Judgment aggregation and the relevance of some issues to others. London School of Economics, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F., List C. (2007a) Judgment aggregation by quota rules: Majority voting generalized. Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(4): 391–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F., List C. (2007b) Strategy-proof judgment aggregation. Economics and Philosophy 23(3): 269–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietrich F., List C. (2008) Judgment aggregation without full rationality. Social Choice and Welfare 31: 15–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douven I., Romeijn J.-W. (2007) The discursive dilemma as a lottery paradox. Economics and Philosophy 23: 301–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gärdenfors P. (2006) A representation theorem for voting with logical consequences. Economics and Philosophy 22(2): 181–190

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horty J. (2002) Skepticism and floating conclusions. Artificial Intelligence 135: 55–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horty J. F. (2007) Reasons as defaults. Philosophers 7(3): 1–28

    Google Scholar 

  • John J. F. (2007) Defaults with priorities. Journal of Philosophical Logic 36: 367–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Konieczny S., Lang J., Marquis P. (2004) DA2 Merging operators. Artificial Intelligence 157(1–2): 49–79

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List, C. (2007). When to defer to super-majority testimony— and when not to. Manuscript. London: London School of Economics.

  • List C. (2008) Group deliberation and the revision of judgments: An impossibility result. Journal of Political Philosophy 19: 1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • List C., Pettit P. (2002) Sets of judgments: An impossibility result. Economics and Philosophy 18: 89–110

    Google 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, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller K. M. (2008) Judgment aggregation and subjective decision-making. Economics and Philosophy 24: 205–231

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael K. M., Osherson D. (2009) Methods for distance-based judgment aggregation. Social Choice and Welfare 32: 575–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mongin P. (2005) Factoring out the impossibility of judgment aggregation. Journal of Economic Theory 141(1): 100–113

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nehring, K. (2005) The (im)possibility of a paretian rational. Manuscript. Davis: UC Davis.

  • Nehring K., Puppe C. (2010) Justifiable group choice. Journal of Economic Theory 145: 583–602

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauly M. (2006) Logical constraints on judgment aggregation. Journal of Philosophical Logic 65: 132–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit P. (2001) Deliberative democracy and the discursive dilemma. Philosophical Issues 11: 268–299

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit P. (2006) When to defer to majority testimony and when not to. Analysis 65: 132–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Pigozzi G. (2008) Belief merging and the discursive dilemma. Synthese 152(2): 285–298

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C. (1995) Incompletely theorized agreements. Harvard Law Review 108(7): 1733–1772

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA

    Fabrizio Cariani

Authors
  1. Fabrizio Cariani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fabrizio Cariani.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cariani, F. Aggregating with reason(s). Synthese 190, 3123–3147 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0133-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0133-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation