Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:39:05.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal Judgment Aggregation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Jesús Zamora Bonilla
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The constitution of a collective judgment is analyzed from a contractarian point of view. The optimal collective judgment is defined as the one that maximizes the sum of the utility each member gets from the collective adoption of that judgment. It is argued that judgment aggregation is a different process from the aggregation of information and public deliberation. This entails that the adoption of a collective judgment should not make any rational member of the group change her individual opinion, and so the collective judgment can not have any kind of epistemic superiority over the individual ones.

Type
Decision and Game Theory
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 74 , Issue 5: Proceedings of the 2006 Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers. Edited by Cristina Bicchieri and Jason Alexander , December 2007 , pp. 813 - 824
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

The author acknowledges Spanish Government's research projects HUM2005–01686/FISO and HUM2005-25447-E, as well as the grant PR2006-0108 which allowed a three months stay at the Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, in which a big part of this paper was written.

References

Brennan, Geoffrey, and Buchanan, James (1985), The Reason of Rules. Constitutional Political Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dietrich, Franz (2006), “Judgment Aggregation: (Im)possibility Theorems”, Judgment Aggregation: (Im)possibility Theorems 126:286–298.Google Scholar
Goldman, Alvin (2004), “Group Knowledge versus Group Rationality: Two Approaches to Social Epistemology”, Group Knowledge versus Group Rationality: Two Approaches to Social Epistemology 1:11–22.Google Scholar
Kornhauser, Lewis A., and Sager, Lawrence G. (1986), “Unpacking the Court”, Unpacking the Court 96:82–117.Google Scholar
List, Christian (2005), “The Probability of Inconsistencies in Complex Collective Decisions”, The Probability of Inconsistencies in Complex Collective Decisions 24:3–32.Google Scholar
List, Christian, and Pettit, Philip (2002), “Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result”, Aggregating Sets of Judgments: An Impossibility Result 18:89–110.Google Scholar
List, Christian, and Pettit, Philip (2006), “Group Agency and Supervenience”, unpublished.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niiniluoto, Ilkka (1997), Truthlikeness. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip (2001a), A Theory of Freedom: From the Psychology to the Politics of Agency. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Pettit, Philip (2001b), “Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma”, Deliberative Democracy and the Discursive Dilemma 11:268–299.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya (1970), Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden Day.Google Scholar