Introduction

This chapter offers a critical overview of arguments for non-distributive collective responsi­bility, which are based on a central problem of judgment aggregation, the so-called discursive dilemma.

Accordingly, the chapter has two main critical objectives. The first goal is to show that there is actually a whole family of responsibility-collectivist arguments which all take the discursive dilemma as their point of departure but reach the collectivist conclusion along different routes. It has not always been made sufficiently clear in prior contributions to this debate that the move from the discursive dilemma to responsibility-collectivism is by no means trivial and that there are different ways of forging the missing link. Cataloguing these “bridge arguments” is also important for the second goal of the chapter. This is to understand better what specific reasons responsibility-individualists may have for disagreeing with the collectivist.

Section 21.2 defines the notion of non-distributive collective responsibility at stake in the debate between individualists and collectivists. Section 21.3 introduces a general distinction between agency-based and responsibility-based arguments for collective responsibility. To pro­vide some context, agency-based and responsibility-based collectivist arguments which do not use the discursive dilemma will be briefly summarized in this section as well. An example of the discursive dilemma is presented in section 21.4, while sections 21.5 and 21.6 discuss responsibility-based and agency-based arguments from the discursive dilemma and various indi­vidualist objections. Section 21.7 concludes.

21.2