Judgment Aggregation
Judgment Aggregation
复制标题
判断聚合
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2011
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
P. Mongin
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
P. Mongin
判断聚合理论是对社会选择理论的推广，它将聚合规则应用于所有类型的判断，而不是仅仅应用于偏好判断。该理论源于科恩豪泽和萨格尔的理论悖论和佩蒂特的话语困境，其中列表和佩蒂特变成了一个不可能定理-第一个长长的列表来。在提到这个形成阶段之后，本文重申了现在被认为是判断聚合理论的“规范定理”（分别由尼林和Puppe、Dokow和Holzman以及Dietrich和Mongin提出的三个版本）。论文的最后一部分讨论了判断聚合理论如何与社会选择理论联系起来，并对社会选择理论做出贡献;它挑出了两个有代表性的应用，一个是阿罗的不可能性定理，另一个是群体识别问题。38.1一种新的聚合理论人们普遍认为，大学机构通常比个人负责的机构做出更好的决策。这种乐观主义思想可以追溯到卢梭、孔多塞等启蒙思想家，并渗透到今天的西方司法组织中，西方司法组织继承了这一哲学传统。一个法律的案件越重要，它就越有可能被委托给合议庭;上诉法院通常是合议庭，而在法律的组织中，宪法法院总是最高的。然而，下面这个法律的理论中的经典例子却对启蒙主义的观点提出了挑战。作者感谢Franz Dietrich和阿什利Piggins的评论。P. Mongin（！）CNRS & HEC法国巴黎电子邮件：mongin@greg-hec.com © Springer International Publishing AG，part of Springer Nature 2018 S. O. Hansson，V. F. Hendricks（编辑），形式哲学导论，施普林格哲学本科教材，https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77434-3_38 705
Judgment aggregation theory generalizes social choice theory by having the aggregation rule bear on judgments of all kinds instead of barely judgments of preference. The theory derives from Kornhauser and Sager’s doctrinal paradox and Pettit’s discursive dilemma, which List and Pettit turned into an impossibility theorem – the first of a long list to come. After mentioning this formative stage, the paper restates what is now regarded as the “canonical theorem” of judgment aggregation theory (in three versions due to Nehring and Puppe, Dokow and Holzman, and Dietrich and Mongin, respectively). The last part of paper discusses how judgment aggregation theory connects with social choice theory and can contribute to it; it singles out two representative applications, one to Arrow’s impossibility theorem and the other to the group identification problem. 38.1 A New Brand of Aggregation Theory It is a commonplace idea that collegial institutions generally make better decisions than those in which a single individual is in charge. This optimistic view can be traced back to Enlighment theorists, such as Rousseau and Condorcet, and it permeates today’s western judiciary organization, which is heir to this philosophical tradition. The more important a legal case, the more likely it is to be entrusted to a collegial court; appeal courts are typically collegial, and at the top of the legal organization, constitutional courts always are. However, the following, by now classic example from legal theory challenges the Enlightment view. The author gratefully acknowledges Franz Dietrich’s and Ashley Piggins’s comments. P. Mongin (!) CNRS & HEC Paris, France e-mail: mongin@greg-hec.com © Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018 S. O. Hansson, V. F. Hendricks (eds.), Introduction to Formal Philosophy, Springer Undergraduate Texts in Philosophy, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77434-3_38 705