The ``doctrinal paradox'' or ``discursive dilemma'' shows that propositionwise majority voting over the judgments held by multiple individuals on some interconnected propositions can lead to inconsistent collective judgments on these propositions. List and Pettit (2002) have proved that this paradox illustrates a more general impossibility theorem showing that there exists no aggregation procedure that generally produces consistent collective judgments and satisfies certain minimal conditions. Although the paradox and the theorem concern the aggregation of judgments rather than preferences, they invite comparison (...) with two established results on the aggregation of preferences: the Condorcet paradox and Arrow's impossibility theorem. We may ask whether the new impossibility theorem is a special case of Arrow's theorem, or whether there are interesting disanalogies between the two results. In this paper, we compare the two theorems, and show that they are not straightforward corollaries of each other. We further suggest that, while the framework of preference aggregation can be mapped into the framework of judgment aggregation, there exists no obvious reverse mapping. Finally, we address one particular minimal condition that is used in both theorems – an independence condition – and suggest that this condition points towards a unifying property underlying both impossibility results. (shrink)

In the general theory of logic built up by Whitehead and Russell to furnish a basis for all mathematics there is a certain subtheory which is unique in its simplicity and precision; and though all other portions of the work have their roots in this subtheory, it itself is completely independent of them. Whereas the complete theory requires for the enunciation of its propositions real and apparent variables, which represent both individuals and propositional functions of different kinds, and as a (...) result necessitates- the introduction of the cumbersome theory of types, this subtheory uses only real variables, and these real variables represent but one kind of entity—which the authors have chosen to call elementary propositions. The most general statements are formed by merely combining these variables by means of the two primitive propositional functions of propositions Negation and Disjunction; and the entire theory is concerned with the process of asserting those combinations which it regards as true propositions, employing for this purpose a few general rules which tell how to assert new combinations from old, and a certain number of primitive assertions from which to begin. (shrink)

Logical puzzles like the doctrinal paradox raise the problem of how to aggregate individual judgements into a collective judgement, or alternatively, how to merge collectively inconsistent knowledge bases. In this paper, we view judgement aggregation as a function on propositional logic valuations, and we investigate how logic constrains judgement aggregation. In particular, we show that there is no non-dictatorial decision method for aggregating sets of judgements in a logically consistent way if the decision method is local, i.e., only depends on (...) the individual judgements on the proposition under consideration. (shrink)