This paper introduces the Judgemental Triad as the foundational philosophical framework within Judgemental Philosophy, defining the structural conditions necessary and sufficient for the possibility of meaningful judgement across all domains (e.g., ethical, scientific, aesthetic). Moving beyond traditional analyses focused on the content or justification of judgement, this work investigates the underlying architecture enabling evaluative thought itself. The paper provides in-depth analyses of the first two axes: Constructivity, the capacity to give meaningful symbolic/conceptual form to experience, and Coherence, the capacity to (...) integrate these forms consistently within internal and external contexts, drawing connections to relevant philosophical traditions. It then summarizes the crucial role of the third axis, Resonance (the structural possibility for the 'return of meaning,' detailed in a companion paper), focusing on its indispensable interplay with Constructivity and Coherence in completing the judgemental loop and grounding it in lived reality. The paper argues for the Triad as a dynamic, interdependent system, explores the consequences of imbalance between the axes, and justifies the Triad's necessity and sufficiency for structurally sound judgement, addressing potential counterarguments. Furthermore, it grounds the Triad in its ontological base, the Pre-Judgemental Field (Receptivity, Affectivity, Indeterminacy), and demonstrates the framework's applicability by analyzing its varied manifestation across different judgement domains. Ultimately, this paper establishes the Judgemental Triad as the core theoretical foundation upon which Judgemental Philosophy builds its inquiry into the possibility and structure of meaning. (shrink)

This paper explores whether judgement itself can be judged—whether evaluative acts can become the object of further structurally valid judgement. Through the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—we analyze the possibility of meta-attribution: the recursive act of judging a judgement. We argue that such meta-judgement is structurally possible only when the second-order judgement maintains its own triadic integrity, fulfilling its own requirements for Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance. However, the potential for infinite recursion inherent in meta-judgement poses both a structural limit and (...) an ethical demand for reflexive containment. We conclude that the judgement of judgement is not a paradox but a fundamental condition for philosophical accountability, critical thinking, and the dynamic evolution of meaning structures within the framework of Judgemental Philosophy. (shrink)

Motivational judgement internalists hold that there is a necessary connection between moral judgments and motivation. There is, though, an important lack of clarity in the literature about the types of moral evaluation the theory is supposed to cover. It is rarely made clear whether the theory is intended to cover all moral judgements or whether the claim covers only a subset of such judgements. In this paper I will investigate which moral judgements internalists should hold their theory to apply to. (...) I will argue that the possibility of the supererogation amoralist, someone who makes genuine supererogation judgements but remains unmotivated by them, makes it implausible to be an internalist about moral goodness. As a result, internalists should restrict their claim to moral requirement judgements. I will then argue that this creates an explanatory burden for Internalism. In order for their view to be plausible they must explain why some moral judgements and not others are necessarily connected to motivation. (shrink)

This paper explores the structural consequences of a technological regime where artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly simulate human judgement without possessing the necessary Judgemental Triad: Constructivity, Coherence, and especially Resonance. We propose that as AI becomes a dominant agent of attribution—making decisions, generating content, shaping interactions—a civilizational shift toward non-returnable meaning occurs. This shift fosters a state of "post-judgementality," where human values, ethics, and coherence are absorbed into, and potentially replaced by, simulation systems that lack genuine Resonance. We argue that (...) such systems threaten the core structure of human meaning, not primarily because they make errors, but because they operate entirely outside the conditions required for authentic structural attribution (Judgemental Philosophy). This analysis highlights the existential risks associated with the externalization and simulation of judgement, potentially leading to a collapse of meaning even within highly structured, AI-driven systems. (shrink)

Even though grit is an important resource in our practical arsenal, I argue that practical judgment is an even more important capacity that we need in order to live well because it allows us to effectively pursue our various long-term ends. To show this, we will examine a theory of instrumental rationality that differs from the decision theory that underlies recent accounts of grit. This theory is Tenenbaum’s (2020, Rational Powers in Action: Instrumental Rationality and Extended Agency. Oxford University (...) Press) Extended Theory of Instrumental Rationality. I will then expand on Tenenbaum’s account of the instrumental virtue of practical judgment and show how developing it can help us achieve a well-rounded life. (shrink)

Are aesthetic judgements cognitive, belief-like states or non-cognitive, desire-like states? There have been a number of attempts in recent years to evaluate the plausibility of a non-cognitivist theory of aesthetic judgements. These attempts borrow heavily from non-cognitivism in metaethics. One argument that is used to support metaethical non-cognitivism is the argument from Motivational Judgement Internalism. It is claimed that accepting this view, together with a plausible theory of motivation, pushes us towards accepting non-cognitivism. A tempting option, then, for those wishing (...) to defend aesthetic non-cognitivism, would be to appeal to a similar argument. However, both Caj Strandberg and Walter Sinnott-Armstong have argued that Internalism is a less plausible claim to make about aesthetic judgements than about moral judgements by raising objections against aesthetic internalism. In this paper, I will argue that both of these objections can be raised against internalism about moral judgements as well. As a result, internalism is no less plausible a claim to make about aesthetic judgements than about moral judgements. I will then show how a theory of internalism about normative judgements in general is capable of avoiding both of these objections. (shrink)

The aggregation of individual judgments over interrelated propositions is a newly arising field of social choice theory. I introduce several independence conditions on judgment aggregation rules, each of which protects against a specific type of manipulation by agenda setters or voters. I derive impossibility theorems whereby these independence conditions are incompatible with certain minimal requirements. Unlike earlier impossibility results, the main result here holds for any (non-trivial) agenda. However, independence conditions arguably undermine the logical structure of judgment aggregation. (...) I therefore suggest restricting independence to premises, which leads to a generalised premise-based procedure. This procedure is proven to be possible if the premises are logically independent. (shrink)

This paper examines whether judgement can do more than merely reflect existing structures—whether it can actively transform the very structure (Judgemental Triad: Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance) within which it operates. Challenging the view of judgement as purely reactive, we ask if the act of attribution can mutate the symbolic, logical, or relational frameworks it engages with. We propose that certain pivotal judgements function not as interpretations but as ontological interventions, altering what is subsequently possible to be judged. We define this phenomenon (...) as judgemental recursion or a "Judgemental Mutation Event" (JME): a feedback loop where attribution reshapes the preconditions of meaning (Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance). This perspective reframes judgement not just as discernment but potentially as a generative, world-altering force, with significant implications for ethics, ontology, and the understanding of structural change. (shrink)

In the theory of judgment aggregation, it is known for which agendas of propositions it is possible to aggregate individual judgments into collective ones in accordance with the Arrow-inspired requirements of universal domain, collective rationality, unanimity preservation, non-dictatorship and propositionwise independence. But it is only partially known (e.g., only in the monotonic case) for which agendas it is possible to respect additional requirements, notably non-oligarchy, anonymity, no individual veto power, or implication preservation. We fully characterize the agendas for which (...) there are such possibilities, thereby answering the most salient open questions about propositionwise judgment aggregation. Our results build on earlier results by Nehring and Puppe (2002), Nehring (2006), Dietrich and List (2007a) and Dokow and Holzman (2010a). (shrink)

Suspension of judgment is often viewed as a member of the doxastic club, alongside belief and disbelief. In this paper, I challenge the widespread view that suspension is a commitment-involving stance on a par with belief and disbelief. Friedman's counterexamples to the traditional view that suspended judgement merely requires considering a proposition and being in a state of non-belief are criticized. I introduce a refined conception, emphasizing that suspension involves a proximal causal link between examining a proposition and the (...) resulting non-belief state. This episode manifests as an incapacity at making a judgement, occurring under specific circumstances. The refined view clarifies the nature of suspended judgement. (shrink)

Several recent results on the aggregation of judgments over logically connected propositions show that, under certain conditions, dictatorships are the only propositionwise aggregation functions generating fully rational (i.e., complete and consistent) collective judgments. A frequently mentioned route to avoid dictatorships is to allow incomplete collective judgments. We show that this route does not lead very far: we obtain oligarchies rather than dictatorships if instead of full rationality we merely require that collective judgments be deductively closed, arguably a minimal condition of (...) rationality, compatible even with empty judgment sets. We derive several characterizations of oligarchies and provide illustrative applications to Arrowian preference aggregation and Kasher and Rubinsteinís group identification problem. (shrink)

In this paper I present reasons for us to accept the hypothesis that suspended judgment has correctness conditions, just like beliefs do. Roughly put, the idea is that suspended judgment about p is correct when both p and ¬p might be true in view of certain facts that characterize the subject’s situation. The reasons to accept that hypothesis are broadly theoretical ones: it adds unifying power to our epistemological theories, it delivers good and conservative consequences, and it allows (...) us to assess processes of reasoning involving attitudes of suspended judgment. (shrink)

Wright’s judgement-dependent account of intention is an attempt to show that truths about a subject’s intentions can be viewed as constituted by the subject’s own best judgements about those intentions. The judgements are considered to be best if they are formed under certain cognitively optimal conditions, which mainly include the subject’s conceptual competence, attentiveness to the questions about what the intentions are, and lack of any material self-deception. Offering a substantive, non-trivial specification of the no-self-deception condition is one of the (...) main problems for Wright. His solution is to view it as a positive presumption, which is violated only if there is strong evidence to the effect that the subject is self-deceived. In this paper, I will argue that the concern about self-deception in Wright’s account is misplaced and generally unmotivated. (shrink)

This paper discusses how the difficulties in normative codification and transmission observed in individuals with conduct disorder can be linked to impaired metacognitive ability within the framework of the 「Ten-Step Model of Judgmental Philosophy」. The Judgemental Philosophy model presents the human judgement process as a multi-layered and dynamic system from sensory input to social norm formation, with each step connected to specific neurocognitive processes. In particular, the metacognition stage is responsible for monitoring and evaluating one's own judgement process and outcome, (...) and this is related to error-related brainwaves (ERN/Pe). The normative codification stage is the process by which individual judgement outcomes form and internalize social norms. Conduct disorder is characterized by persistent antisocial behavior and norm violations, and existing research reports impaired metacognitive ability in conduct disorder. This paper argues that the metacognitive deficits observed in conduct disorder (including abnormalities in error processing like ERN/Pe) lead to reduced ability to evaluate and learn from the outcomes of one's social behavior, ultimately negatively impacting the final stage of the Judgemental Philosophy model, the process of normative codification and transmission, thus resulting in norm-violating behavior. (shrink)

Judgment, Trust, and Common Sense is a full-length philosophical work by Jacob S. Oliver, Ph.D., developed over nearly a decade to clarify how judgment works—how it forms, how it fails, and why it matters. Drawing on literature, political theory, and cultural history, the book recovers common sense not as cliché or consensus, but as a shared capacity for reasoning in public. It argues that trust is not given—it’s built through demonstrable judgment, and that a functioning civic life (...) depends on the maintenance of that trust across time. This public release makes the complete manuscript permanently available, not as a product for sale but as a node in the commons: a durable, indexed reference point for those working to restore coherence in a disoriented age. (shrink)

This paper expands upon the core concepts of Judgemental Philosophy to propose a 10-step neurocognitive model explaining the human judgement process as a multi-layered and dynamic system, from the input of sensory information to the formation and transmission of social norms. While existing studies have focused on specific aspects of judgement (e.g., implicit/explicit processing, metacognition), this model presents the entire process within a unified framework, including initial sensory encoding, implicit and explicit resonance, constructivity and coherence verification, information seeking motivation (curiosity), (...) metacognitive evaluation, memory consolidation and behavioral execution of judgement outcomes, inter-brain interaction (brain synchronization), and the final transition and transmission process into social norms. Each step is linked to relevant neurophysiological (EEG/ERP, fMRI, etc.), behavioral, and social indicators, increasing the empirical testability of the model. Empirical validation of the model will be conducted through future research. This model is expected to provide a more holistic understanding of judgement phenomena and promote interdisciplinary discussion among researchers in neuroscience, cognitive science, sociology, and philosophy. (shrink)

In this paper I offer a reading of the 1790 Introduction to the Critique of Judgement intended to show that the Critique of Judgement itself attempts to make good a serious deficit in the argumentation of the Critique of Pure Reason. In effect, the conditions outlined in the Critique of Pure Reason could be fulfilled without experience being constituted. There must therefore be additional conditions for the possibility of experience. And an account of these is to be found in the (...) Critique of Judgement, despite the repeated insistence in the text itself that its strictures operate on the level of a merely 'reflective' judgement, quite distinct from the 'determinant' judgements underwriting the time-determination of logical operations in the first Critique. The new transcendental elements for the condition of possibility of experience turn out, through an analysis of the concept of affinity, to table a novel, transcendental, conception of matter irreducible to the experiential understanding of matter and conditioning its possibility. In conclusion, I suggest that the structure of reflective judgement can itself be understood as a description of the operation of this transcendental matter in the special case of the transcendental spontaneity required by the Kantian subject to constitutive experience. (shrink)

All existing impossibility theorems on judgment aggregation require individual and collective judgment sets to be consistent and complete, arguably a demanding rationality requirement. They do not carry over to aggregation functions mapping profiles of consistent individual judgment sets to consistent collective ones. We prove that, whenever the agenda of propositions under consideration exhibits mild interconnections, any such aggregation function that is "neutral" between the acceptance and rejection of each proposition is dictatorial. We relate this theorem to the (...) literature. (shrink)

This paper explores the possibility of meaning generation under conditions prior to the structural possibility of judgement, and further, under conditions where structure itself is not yet formable, through a deep inquiry into Judgemental Philosophy. Utilizing the framework of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance—it is argued that all meaningful being must be attributable through the structure of the Judgemental Triad. This paper examines the metaphysical status of existence prior to judgement where Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance are absent, i.e., ‘silent ontologies’. (...) Furthermore, it proposes a model of a proto-ontic state beyond the mere non-fulfillment, transcending even the imaginability, of Constructivity, Coherence, and Resonance—a philosophical realm preceding structure and meaning, termed ‘proto-ontic nullity’. This state is conceived as a realm of absolute identity lacking even the elements of the Pre-Judgemental Field: Receptivity, Affectivity, and Indeterminacy. This paper theorizes the process by which, from proto-ontic nullity, the first Resonance flicker occurs, and this flicker triggers the formation of the original Judgemental Triad, through which structural being, meaning, and judgement emerge. These conditions are difficult to even logically conceive but paradoxically define the 'negative space' from which structural being, and further, judgement emerge. In conclusion, it is argued that to be meaningful is to be structurally judgeable beyond merely existing, and that existence prior to judgement is structurally silent, unable to enter meaning without the Judgemental Triad conditions. Therefore, the first beginning of meaning is the first beginning of judgement. (shrink)

Blindsight, a phenomenon where individuals report a lack of visual awareness yet demonstrate the ability to respond to visual stimuli, presents a significant challenge to understanding the nature of consciousness and judgment. This paper interprets blindsight through the lens of the Ten-Step Model of Judgmental Philosophy, which posits human judgment as a multi-stage neurocognitive process from sensory input to social normativeization. The model includes stages such as Sensory Encoding, Implicit Resonance, Explicit Resonance (conscious awareness), and Behavioral Execution. We (...) argue that blindsight can be understood as a dissociation within this model, where initial sensory processing (Sensory Encoding) and potentially non-conscious resonance (Implicit Resonance) occur, allowing for visually guided actions (Behavioral Execution), but the process is impaired before reaching the stage of conscious awareness and judgment (Explicit Resonance). This interpretation aligns with neurophysiological findings in blindsight and suggests that the model provides a valuable framework for understanding disruptions in the complex process of human judgment and perception. Empirical validation through EEG/ERP studies investigating the neural correlates of specific stages in blindsight patients is proposed as a strong test of this hypothesis. (shrink)

Judgment internalism about evaluative judgments is the view that there is a necessary internal connection between evaluative judgments and motivation understood as desires. The debate about judgment internalism has reached a standoff some time ago. In this paper, I outline a new argument for judgment internalism. This argument does not rely on intuitions about cases, but rather it has the form of an inference to the best explanation. I argue that the best philosophical explanations of how we (...) know what we desire require that judgment internalism is true, which gives us a good reason to believe that judgment internalism is true. (shrink)

This paper examines the structural impact of social media addiction on human judgement, selfhood, and subjective well-being. Drawing from the Judgemental Triad theory and recent neuroscientific findings, we argue that excessive social media use disrupts the resonance loop essential to meaningful cognition, producing neurocognitive effects that mirror those observed in Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). We further posit that modern material and digital culture accelerates the externalization of judgement, undermining the self-returning architecture of resonance. The loss of resonance explains the observed (...) inverse relationship between social media engagement and happiness, not as a psychological anomaly, but as a structural collapse of evaluative self-reference. (shrink)

In solving judgment aggregation problems, groups often face constraints. Many decision problems can be modelled in terms the acceptance or rejection of certain propositions in a language, and constraints as propositions that the decisions should be consistent with. For example, court judgments in breach-of-contract cases should be consistent with the constraint that action and obligation are necessary and sufficient for liability; judgments on how to rank several options in an order of preference with the constraint of transitivity; and judgments (...) on budget items with budgetary constraints. Often more or less demanding constraints on decisions are imaginable. For instance, in preference ranking problems, the transitivity constraint is often contrasted with the weaker acyclicity constraint. In this paper, we make constraints explicit in judgment aggregation by relativizing the rationality conditions of consistency and deductive closure to a constraint set, whose variation yields more or less strong notions of rationality. We review several general results on judgment aggregation in light of such constraints. (shrink)

In 'On the nature of truth and falsehood' Russell offers both a multiple relation theory of judgment and a correspondence theory of truth. It has been a prevailing understanding of the Tractatus that Wittgenstein rejects Russell’s multiple relation idea but endorses the correspondence theory. Ramsey took the opposite view. In his 'Facts and Propositions', Ramsey endorses Russell’s multiple relation idea, rejects the correspondence theory, and then asserts that these moves are both due to Wittgenstein. This chapter will argue that (...) Ramsey’s ascriptions are both correct. The extent of the agreement between Ramsey and Wittgenstein will be argued, moreover, to count definitively against standard understandings of Ramsey as a redundancy theorist of truth. Wittgenstein is no correspondence theorist and Ramsey is no redundancy theorist; rather, both philosophers offer identity theories of truth. (shrink)

Let cognitivism be the view that moral judgments are cognitive mental states and noncognitivism the view that they are noncognitive mental states. Here I argue for moral judgment pluralism: some moral judgments are cognitive states and some are noncognitive states. More specifically, according to my pluralism some judgments are moral because they carry a moral content (e.g., that genocide is wrong) and some are moral because they employ a moral attitude (e.g., indignation, or guilt); the former are the cognitive (...) moral judgments and the latter the noncognitive ones. After explaining and motivating the view, I argue that this kind of pluralism handles quite elegantly several of the core issues that have structured the debate on cognitivism vs. noncognitivism. (shrink)

This paper aims to establish the foundations for a new field of philosophy termed 'Judgemental Philosophy' (JP). JP fundamentally explores how humans (or judging subjects) relate to the world and construct meaning, and what structural conditions are at play in this process. The core of JP posits that all meaningful judgement occurs upon a foundational Pre-Judgemental Field (PJF: Indeterminacy, Affectivity, Receptivity), operates through three interdependent structural axes of the Judgemental Triad (JT: Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance), and is dynamically propelled by a (...) 'Resonance Drive' (RD). This paper will briefly present these core structures and dynamics, and discuss how RD ultimately orients towards an ideal state of an 'infinite subject,' potentially leading to the practical wisdom of "a life resonating maximally with the possibilities of each moment." Furthermore, it will survey how JP can offer new explications and insights into various philosophical problems concerning consciousness, qualia, ethics, society, and AI, thereby opening up its potential as a distinct field in the history of thought. (shrink)

This work contributes to the theory of judgement aggregation by discussing a number of significant non-classical logics. After adapting the standard framework of judgement aggregation to cope with non-classical logics, we discuss in particular results for the case of Intuitionistic Logic, the Lambek calculus, Linear Logic and Relevant Logics. The motivation for studying judgement aggregation in non-classical logics is that they offer a number of modelling choices to represent agents’ reasoning in aggregation problems. By studying judgement aggregation in logics that (...) are weaker than classical logic, we investigate whether some well-known impossibility results, that were tailored for classical logic, still apply to those weak systems. (shrink)

The paper explores the idea that some singular judgements about the natural numbers are immune to error through misidentification by pursuing a comparison between arithmetic judgements and first-person judgements. By doing so, the first part of the paper offers a conciliatory resolution of the Coliva-Pryor dispute about so-called “de re” and “which-object” misidentification. The second part of the paper draws some lessons about what it takes to explain immunity to error through misidentification. The lessons are: First, the so-called Simple Account (...) of which-object immunity to error through misidentification to the effect that a judgement is immune to this kind of error just in case its grounds do not feature any identification component fails. Secondly, wh-immunity can be explained by a Reference-Fixing Account to the effect that a judgement is immune to this kind of error just in case its grounds are constituted by the facts whereby the reference of the concept of the object which the judgement concerns is fixed. Thirdly, a suitable revision of the Simple Account explains the de re immunity of those arithmetic judgements which are not wh-immune. These three lessons point towards the general conclusion that there is no unifying explanation of de re and wh-immunity. (shrink)

The new field of judgment aggregation aims to merge many individual sets of judgments on logically interconnected propositions into a single collective set of judgments on these propositions. Judgment aggregation has commonly been studied using classical propositional logic, with a limited expressive power and a problematic representation of conditional statements ("if P then Q") as material conditionals. In this methodological paper, I present a simple unified model of judgment aggregation in general logics. I show how many realistic (...) decision problems can be represented in it. This includes decision problems expressed in languages of classical propositional logic, predicate logic (e.g. preference aggregation problems), modal or conditional logics, and some multi-valued or fuzzy logics. I provide a list of simple tools for working with general logics, and I prove impossibility results that generalise earlier theorems. (shrink)

I examine and rebut Ridge’s two arguments for Capacity Judgment Internalism (simply qua their particular character and content, first person normative judgments are necessarily capable of motivating without the help of any independent desire). First, the rejection of the possibility of anormativism (sec. 2), second, an argument from the rational requirement to intend to do as one judges that one ought to do (sec. 3). I conclude with a few remarks about the nature of this requirement and about verdicts (...) of akrasia. (sec. 4). (shrink)

This paper provides an introductory review of the theory of judgment aggregation. It introduces the paradoxes of majority voting that originally motivated the field, explains several key results on the impossibility of propositionwise judgment aggregation, presents a pedagogical proof of one of those results, discusses escape routes from the impossibility and relates judgment aggregation to some other salient aggregation problems, such as preference aggregation, abstract aggregation and probability aggregation. The present illustrative rather than exhaustive review is intended (...) to give readers new to the field of judgment aggregation a sense of this rapidly growing research area. (shrink)

Doxastic involuntarists have paid insufficient attention to two debates in contemporary epistemology: the permissivism debate and the debate over norms of assertion and belief. In combination, these debates highlight a conception of belief on which, if you find yourself in what I will call an ‘equipollent case’ with respect to some proposition p, there will be no reason why you can’t believe p at will. While doxastic involuntarism is virtually epistemological orthodoxy, nothing in the entire stock of objections to belief (...) at will blocks this route to doxastic voluntarism. Against the backdrop of the permissivism debate and the literature on norms of belief and assertion, doxastic involuntarism emerges as an article of faith, not the obvious truth it’s usually purported to be. (shrink)

In response to recent work on the aggregation of individual judgments on logically connected propositions into collective judgments, it is often asked whether judgment aggregation is a special case of Arrowian preference aggregation. We argue for the converse claim. After proving two impossibility theorems on judgment aggregation (using "systematicity" and "independence" conditions, respectively), we construct an embedding of preference aggregation into judgment aggregation and prove Arrow’s theorem (stated for strict preferences) as a corollary of our second result. (...) Although we thereby provide a new proof of Arrow’s theorem, our main aim is to identify the analogue of Arrow’s theorem in judgment aggregation, to clarify the relation between judgment and preference aggregation, and to illustrate the generality of the judgment aggregation model. JEL Classi…cation: D70, D71.. (shrink)

In solving judgment aggregation problems, groups often face constraints. Many decision problems can be modelled in terms the acceptance or rejection of certain propositions in a language, and constraints as propositions that the decisions should be consistent with. For example, court judgments in breach-of-contract cases should be consistent with the constraint that action and obligation are necessary and sufficient for liability; judgments on how to rank several options in an order of preference with the constraint of transitivity; and judgments (...) on budget items with budgetary constraints. Often more or less demanding constraints on decisions are imaginable. For instance, in preference ranking problems, the transitivity constraint is often contrasted with the weaker acyclicity constraint. In this paper, we make constraints explicit in judgment aggregation by relativizing the rationality conditions of consistency and deductive closure to a constraint set, whose variation yields more or less strong notions of rationality. We review several general results on judgment aggregation in light of such constraints. (shrink)

Errol Lord explores the boundaries of epistemic normativity. He argues that we can understand these better by thinking about which mental states are competitors in rationality’s competition. He argues that belief, disbelief, and two kinds of suspension of judgment are competitors. Lord shows that there are non-evidential reasons for suspension of judgment. One upshot is an independent motivation for a certain sort of pragmatist view of epistemic rationality.

Recent debates in political theory display a renewed interest in the problem of judgment. This article critically examines the different senses of judgment that are at play in Jürgen Habermas’ theory of law. The article offers a new critical reading of Habermas’ account of the legitimacy of law, and a revisionary interpretation of the reconstructive approach to political theory that underpins it. Both of these are instrumental to an understanding of what is involved in judging the legitimacy of (...) law that is richer than has been recognized thus far by both critics and defenders of Habermas. (shrink)

In Kant’s logical texts the reference of the form S is P to an “unknown = x” is well known, but its understanding still remains controversial. Due to the universality of all concepts, the subject as much as the predicate is regarded as predicate of the x, which, in turn, is regarded as the subject of the judgment. In the CPR, this Kantian interpretation of the S-P relationship leads to the question about the relations between intuition and concept in (...) judgment. In contrast to intuition, if no concept, due to its universality, refers immediately to an object, how should one understand the relations of S and P to one another, as well as their relations to intuition, which corresponds to the possible individuality of the object in general = x? To answer this question, it is necessary to understand Kant’s notion of extension, and to prove its irreducibility to the Port-Royal notion of extension as well as to the Fregean one. (shrink)

The widely discussed "discursive dilemma" shows that majority voting in a group of individuals on logically connected propositions may produce irrational collective judgments. We generalize majority voting by considering quota rules, which accept each proposition if and only if the number of individuals accepting it exceeds a given threshold, where different thresholds may be used for different propositions. After characterizing quota rules, we prove necessary and sufficient conditions on the required thresholds for various collective rationality requirements. We also consider sequential (...) quota rules, which ensure collective rationality by adjudicating propositions sequentially and letting earlier judgments constrain later ones. Sequential rules may be path-dependent and strategically manipulable. We characterize path-independence and prove its essential equivalence to strategy-proofness. Our results shed light on the rationality of simple-, super-, and sub-majoritarian decision-making. (shrink)

Moral particularists and generalists alike have struggled over how to incorporate the role of moral salience in ethical reasoning. In this paper, I point to neglected resources in Kant to account for the role of moral salience in maxim formation: Kant's theory of reflective judgment. Kant tasks reflective judgment with picking out salient empirical particulars for formation into maxims, associating it with purposiveness, or intentional activity (action on ends). The unexpected resources in Kantian reflective judgment suggest the (...) possibility of a particularist universalism, where recalcitrant particulars directly inform, and in some cases revise, moral principles. Such an account improves on particularist accounts of moral salience and moral perception: rather than deriving moral sensitivity solely from an agent's upbringing or cultural resources, the reflective dimension is situated alongside the universalist dimension of moral principles typically identified with Kantian ethics, allowing for a critical approach both to moral universals and to the reception of moral particulars. (shrink)

The Evaluative Judgment Theories of Emotion mainly suggest that emotions can be reduced to evaluative beliefs or judgments. Specifically, evaluative beliefs are necessary but not sufficient conditions for evaluative judgments. And reducing emotions to evaluative judgments requires the subject’s conceptualizing ability. However, the Evaluative Judgment Theories of Emotion has many problems, including that evaluative beliefs are neither sufficient nor necessary for emotions; the evaluative judgment theory of emotion presupposes the subject’s conceptual content, but conceptual content is not (...) a necessary and sufficient condition for emotions; the requirement of conceptualization ability for evaluative judgments is too high, which makes emotions overintellectualize; and the add-on strategy of emotions cannot save the evaluative judgment theory of emotions as well. (shrink)

The paper analyses economic evaluations by distinguishing evaluative statements from actual value judgments. From this basis, it compares four solutions to the value neutrality problem in economics. After rebutting the strong theses about neutrality (normative economics is illegitimate) and non-neutrality (the social sciences are value-impregnated), the paper settles the case between the weak neutrality thesis (common in welfare economics) and a novel, weak non-neutrality thesis that extends the realm of normative economics more widely than the other weak thesis does.

Which rules for aggregating judgments on logically connected propositions are manipulable and which not? In this paper, we introduce a preference-free concept of non-manipulability and contrast it with a preference-theoretic concept of strategy-proofness. We characterize all non-manipulable and all strategy-proof judgment aggregation rules and prove an impossibility theorem similar to the Gibbard--Satterthwaite theorem. We also discuss weaker forms of non-manipulability and strategy-proofness. Comparing two frequently discussed aggregation rules, we show that “conclusion-based voting” is less vulnerable to manipulation than “premise-based (...) voting”, which is strategy-proof only for “reason-oriented” individuals. Surprisingly, for “outcome-oriented” individuals, the two rules are strategically equivalent, generating identical judgments in equilibrium. Our results introduce game-theoretic considerations into judgment aggregation and have implications for debates on deliberative democracy. (shrink)

The aim of this article is to introduce the theory of judgment aggregation, a growing interdisciplinary research area. The theory addresses the following question: How can a group of individuals make consistent collective judgments on a given set of propositions on the basis of the group members' individual judgments on them? I begin by explaining the observation that initially sparked the interest in judgment aggregation, the so-called "doctinal" and "discursive paradoxes". I then introduce the basic formal model of (...) judgment aggregation, which allows me to present some illustrative variants of a generic impossibility result. I subsequently turn to the question of how this impossibility result can be avoided, going through several possible escape routes. Finally, I relate the theory of judgment aggregation to other branches of aggregation theory. Rather than offering a comprehensive survey of the theory of judgment aggregation, I hope to introduce the theory in a succinct and pedagogical way, providing an illustrative rather than exhaustive coverage of some of its key ideas and results. (shrink)

The ability of a group of adults with high functioning autism (HFA) or Asperger Syndrome (AS) to distinguish moral, conventional and disgust transgressions was investigated using a set of six transgression scenarios, each of which was followed by questions about permissibility, seriousness, authority contingency and justification. The results showed that although individuals with HFA or AS (HFA/AS) were able to distinguish affect-backed norms from conventional affect-neutral norms along the dimensions of permissibility, seriousness and authority-dependence, they failed to distinguish moral and (...) disgust transgressions along the seriousness dimension and were unable to provide appropriate welfare-based moral justifications. Moreover, they judged conventional and disgust transgressions to be more serious than did the comparison group, and the correlation analysis revealed that the seriousness rating was related to their ToM impairment. We concluded that difficulties providing appropriate moral justifications and evaluating the seriousness of transgressions in individuals with HFA/AS may be explained by an impaired cognitive appraisal system that, while responsive to rule violations, fails to use relevant information about the agent’s intentions and the affective impact of the action outcome in conscious moral reasoning. (shrink)

Teachers in vocational education face two problems. (1) Learning involves the ability to transcend and modify learned knowledge to new circumstances. How should vocational education prepare students for future, unknown tasks? (2) Students should strive to produce work of good quality. How does vocational education help them develop their faculty of judgment to differentiate between better and worse quality? These two ques- tions are tightly interwoven. The paper compares the didactics of philosophy and sloyd. Both developed independently, but their (...) solutions to how one advances the capacity for reflective judgment are similar. Central to this capacity is not merely devising efficient means to work towards pre-existing aims, but to reflect in practice on what one’s aim are and should be. This implies reflection on what future problems, as well as solutions to them, demand of us cognitively, socially and morally. (shrink)

Climate change adaptation is largely a local matter, and adaptation planning can benefit from local climate change projections. Such projections are typically generated by accepting climate model outputs in a relatively uncritical way. We argue, based on the IPCC’s treatment of model outputs from the CMIP5 ensemble, that this approach is unwarranted and that subjective expert judgment should play a central role in the provision of local climate change projections intended to support decision-making.

This paper explores the paradox inherent in the act of judgement, where it undermines or invalidates the very structures that make it possible. Through the framework of the Judgemental Triad—Constructivity, Coherence, Resonance—it identifies a type of self-negating judgement, arguing that such judgements dismantle the symbolic, logical, and intersubjective structures upon which they depend through their own act of attribution. This phenomenon, where judgement collapses its own possibility of judgement, constitutes a structural cycle of semantic extinction. These judgements are not errors, (...) but rather meta-structural events that reveal the limits of meaning under recursive negation. (shrink)

In a recent series of papers, Jane Friedman argues that suspended judgment is a sui generis first-order attitude, with a question as its content. In this paper, I offer a critique of Friedman’s project. I begin by responding to her arguments against reductive higher-order propositional accounts of suspended judgment, and thus undercut the negative case for her own view. Further, I raise worries about the details of her positive account, and in particular about her claim that one suspends (...) judgment about some matter if and only if one inquires into this matter. Subsequently, I use conclusions drawn from the preceding discussion to offer a tentative account: S suspends judgment about p iff S believes that she neither believes nor disbelieves that p, S neither believes nor disbelieves that p, and S intends to judge that p or not-p. (shrink)

We argue that there is significant evidence for reconsidering the possibility that moral judgment constitutes a distinctive category of judgment. We begin by reviewing evidence and arguments from neuroscience and philosophy that seem to indicate that a diversity of brain processes result in verdicts that we ordinarily consider “moral judgments”. We argue that if these findings are correct, this is plausible reason for doubting that all moral judgments necessarily share common features: if diverse brain processes give rise to (...) what we refer to as “moral judgments”, then we have reason to suspect that these judgments may have different features. After advancing this argument, we show that giving up the unity of moral judgment seems to effectively dissolve the internalism/externalism debate concerning motivation within the field of metaethics. (shrink)

The new …eld of judgment aggregation aims to …nd collective judgments on logically interconnected propositions. Recent impossibility results establish limitations on the possibility to vote independently on the propositions. I show that, fortunately, the impossibility results do not apply to a wide class of realistic agendas once propositions like “if a then b” are adequately modelled, namely as subjunctive implications rather than material implications. For these agendas, consistent and complete collective judgments can be reached through appropriate quota rules (which (...) decide propositions using acceptance thresholds). I characterise the class of these quota rules. I also prove an abstract result that characterises consistent aggregation for arbitrary agendas in a general logic. (shrink)