ABSTRACT
Introduction There has been much recent work on the problem of ‘judgment aggregation’: how can the judgments of several individuals on logically connected propositions be aggregated into corresponding collective judgments (for example, List and Pettit 2002; Pauly and van Hees 2006; Dietrich 2006; Nehring and Puppe forthcoming)? To illustrate, consider the much-cited example of the ‘doctrinal paradox’ (Kornhausser and Sager 1986). Suppose a three-member court has to make collective judgments (acceptance/rejection) on three connected propositions:
a The defendant did action X. b The defendant had a contractual obligation not to do action X. c The defendant is liable for breach of contract.
