Click here and press the right key for the next slide.
(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)
Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)
Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)
Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)
Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts
Why suppose that team reasoning explains how
there could be aggregate subjects?
For any A, B, C ∈ S: if A⪯B and B⪯C then A⪯C.
For any A, B ∈ S: either A⪯B or B⪯A
‘Continuity implies that no outcome is so bad that you would not be willing to take some gamble that might result in you ending up with that outcome [...] provided that the chance of the bad outcome is small enough.’
roughly, if you prefer A to B then you should prefer A and C to B and C.
Steele & Stefánsson (2020, p. §2.3)
For an aggregate agent comprising me and you to nonaccidentally satisfy these axioms
- we must coincide on what its preferences are
- we must coincide on when each of us is acting as part of the aggregate (rather than individually)
... and on which part of the aggregate we each are
- whenever any of us unilaterally attempts to influence what its preferences are by acting, we must succeed in doing so
‘There is ... nothing inherently inconsistent in the possibility that every member of the group has an individual preference for y over x (say, each prefers wine bars to pubs) while the group acts on an objective that ranks x above y.’
autonomy -> rare for team reasoning to occur because axioms
no autonomy -> no aggregate subject after all (just self-interested optimism)