Collective Action

[Forthcoming in Signs of the Social (provisional title), edited by Bhaskarjit Neog, and to be published by Routledge. For a penultimate draft, please email the author.] Assuming a causal theory of action, this chapter argues that the distinctive feature of joint intentional activity is that each participant’s contribution is rationalised and guided by a ‘we-intention’. It contends that such we-intentions can be reduced to ordinary mental states with collective content, in accordance with the ‘content approach’. The chapter proposes two jointly (...) minimally sufficient conditions for an agent to possess a we-intention: (1) the agent intends that she and the others J, by way of each agent’s intentions that they J together, and by way of co-realisable sub-plans (this is Michael Bratman’s intention condition); and (2) she assumes or believes that the end that they J together is shared, such that she and the others each intend it (the doxastic shared end condition). The chapter then addresses objections according to which such a content account cannot explain how we-intentions can arise from ‘team reasoning’—a form of practical reasoning that sometimes leads individuals to engage in joint intentional activity. The chapter argues that these objections fail and that the content approach to we-intentions is fully compatible with theories of team reasoning. (shrink)

Over one million annual deaths have been attributed to bacterial antimicrobial resistance. Although antibiotics have saved countless other lives, overuse and misuse of antibiotics increases this global threat. Developing new antibiotics and retraining clinicians can be undermined by patients who pressure clinicians to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. So we validated two low-cost, scalable interventions for improving antibiotic decisions in an online randomized control trial and a pre-registered replication (N = 985). Both first-person vignette experiments found that an infographic and text message (...) caused intermediate to large improvements in antibiotic decisions compared to active controls — even when controlling for a dozen confounds. Notably, these educational interventions also reduced trust in a clinician who offered antibiotics for an upper respiratory infection. These data show how low-cost adjustments to existing communication systems can teach people to reduce the existential risks of antibiotic resistance and how inappropriate antibiotic prescribing can erode trust in health systems. (shrink)

This work deconstructs the subjective experience, and identifies the role of empathy in experience as being capable of reconciling the mob mindedness that accompanies ideologies. The essence of the paper is to discuss and elucidate the societal impact of empathetic being, and the correlation with such states of being as an avenue for learning which identifies and interprets reality rather than realizing it. The idea is that by empathetically interpreting our experience and empathetically informing our modes of expression, one becomes (...) capable of interpreting universal archetypes. Much like what Plato described as being the difference between the sage and the philosopher. (shrink)

(This is one of the essays to be included in a book examining the causes of day-to-day strife in the populations of modern democracies vying to live and assert the freedoms promised to them by systems of governance supposed and expected to represent them.) "If waste may be defined as all that is not being used for the growth and perpetuation of humanity, then health could be said to equate to all that is useful to this self-same objective. It could (...) be considered amiss to minimise such an expansive issue to that very simple definition; yet, recognising the simplicity and abiding by it at the individual level first and then at all levels in society requires acknowledgement, which, logically, should also trigger action." . (shrink)

This is a draft of the last chapter of my book-in-progress entitled Kantsequentialism: A Morality of Ends. In it, I explain how Kantsequentialism offers us important insights regarding various practical issues, including those regarding partiality, procreation, collective action, population ethics, and the aggregation of lives and limbs. It includes four main sections: (1) Promoting the Impersonal Good: Population and Procreation; (2) The Duty to Rescue: Do the Numbers Count?; (3) Love and Solidarity: Affective Partiality versus Agential Partiality; and (4) Overdetermined (...) Collective Harms: Who Are the Culprits and What Are They Culpable for? (shrink)

Some argue that the more costly it would be to exercise one's power over an issue, the less power one inherently has over it. I challenge this thesis with two major objections���one conceptual, the other practical or explanatory—contending that costs influence issue-power not inherently but contingently in specifically strategic contexts. Since agents’ strategic dispositions are partly shaped by their perception of others’ strategic incentives or dispositions, costs may affect—for better or worse!—one's bargaining power (in cases of conflict) or power to (...) act in concert with others (in cases of shared preferences or aims). In many significant political contexts, greater costs increase actors’ social power. Moreover, a group's collective power, and so its members’ power-with, depend not only on the external cost structure, but also on opportunities for forging solidarity. The role of costs and solidarity explains why subjection to others can, paradoxically, sometimes increase one's power. (shrink)

In this paper, I explore the question of agency in spontaneous action via a phenomenology of musical improvisation, drawing on fieldwork conducted with large con- temporary improvising ensembles. I argue that musical improvisation is a form of ‘participatory sense-making’ in which musical decisions unfold via a feedback pro- cess with the evolving musical situation itself. I describe how musicians’ technical expertise is developed alongside a responsive expertise, and how these capacities complicate the sense in which habitual action can be viewed (...) as pre-conscious or ‘automatic.’ Nevertheless, I shall argue that the self-awareness required for expert improvisation does not amount to highly reflective deliberation, arguing instead that the practice of musical improvisation involves an exercise of practical rationality, akin to what Aristotle called phronēsis. Musical decisions – as an expressive form of sense-making – are guided by feelings of ‘rightness’ that are experienced directly and intuitively, responding to the norms and reasons that are embedded in the instruments, sounds, and practices of a particular (sub)culture. (shrink)

Moral collectivists argue that certain groups can bear moral responsibility and moral duties. Moral individualists reject this. In this debate, individualists and collectivists both make a common methodological mistake when theorizing about moral agency, responsibility, and blame. Their arguments implicitly assume an all-out primacy of the individual domain. Unless groups can satisfy the exact conditions of our best theory of individual moral responsibility, they are not morally responsible entities. I argue that none of the plausible arguments justify this all-out primacy. (...) Instead, I defend moderate primacy: (1) We should start our theorizing based on individual cases; and (2) extensional inadequacy for the individual domain is worse than for the group domain. This moderate primacy opens the door for the group domain to play an important role in developing a comprehensive ethical theory. I sketch a directed reflective equilibrium method for systematically including the group domain in our theorizing about moral agency, responsibility, and blame. I further develop the Core Features Argument that shows why the collectivist is justified in developing agent-neutral principles and moral concepts that apply to individual and group agents alike. Finally, I suggest that the group domain offers the potential for adjudicating debates in ethical theory and exciting new lines of inquiry that could help us better understand the moral phenomena that ethical theory seeks to explain. (shrink)

We inquire together all the time, yet the norms of such inquiring are poorly understood. Parallels from norms of individual inquiry fall short in accurately characterizing our inquiring together. The need then for an account of inquiring together which provides normative guidance is pressing. This paper unpacks and defends a version of a crucial norm of such inquiry, inspired by Harman (1986), which codifies the kind of evidence necessary for a shared inquirer to permissibly settle her shared question. It is (...) informed by the demands of directed openness between inquirers, characteristic of much shared activity generally, and shared inquiry specifically. In defending this norm, a general account of shared inquiry is developed, one which sheds light on the complex and surprising relationship between human cooperation and epistemic rationality. (shrink)

Philosophers of action have for the most part ignored work as a case of collective action. Michael Bratman’s distinction between shared co-operative activity and prepackaged co-operation goes further, claiming that any kind of co-operation involving a division of labour is at best an attenuated form of collective action. This paper uses Bratman’s discussion to lays the groundwork for thinking about work as a genuine form of collective action. Connecting Harry Braverman’s account of the division of labour in Taylorised work and (...) the idea that plans come at different degrees of granularity, I argue that the distinction between flexible co-operation and inflexible preplanned collective action is analogous to the distinction between fine-grained and coarse-grained partial plans in the individual case. Rethinking the difference between co-operative activity and activity characterised by the division of labour opens up the possibility of thinking about work involving a division of labour as a distinctive kind of collective action, involving centralised, front-loaded, and fine-grained planning, and helps us to get clear on the harms of Taylorised and deskilled work. (shrink)

Nations are social groups that are often considered strong candidates for collective self-determination. While nations play a central role in many debates in political philosophy, they have thus far been neglected by metaphysicians. This paper develops an ontology of nations. First, I introduce the concept of a nation as it appears in political philosophy, distinguish it from neighboring concepts, and list a number of platitudes that a plausible ontology ought to respect. Next, I present a problem (which, following Allen Buchanan, (...) I call the “Infeasibility Objection”) that is considered a major challenge for national identity as a proper basis of political self-determination. I then present a minimal plenitude ontology of nations. This view not only respects our platitudes about nations, but also helps us make significant progress on the Infeasibility Objection. Finally, I discuss a number of objections to this view and show that none of them succeeds. (shrink)

Should we displace the moral responsibility from the individual to the social in accounts of oppression, discrimination, and injustice? Here, I argue that people, their attitudes and behaviour, have explanatory priority in the assessment of moral responsibility. First, I provide evidence from research in the social sciences that explains cross-cultural identifying features of social facts that are not explainable by purely structural factors. This suggests a heuristic principle to diagnose social phenomena about which explanatory individualism is true: the phenomena that (...) must be explained in terms of individuals and their relations. Second, I argue that some putative cases of structural injustice can nonetheless be regarded as cases where individuals, or collectives of individuals, have responsibility. I conclude by asking whether purely structural harms can be unjust. (shrink)

This article provides a new account of the role of phantasia, imagination, in Aristotle's political thought. Phantasia plays a key role in Aristotle's psychology and is crucial for explaining any kind of movement and action. I argue that this insight holds for collective actions as well. By offering a reconsideration of the famous “Wisdom of the Multitude” passage, this article shows that the capacity of a multitude to act together is tied to its ability to share a collective phantasma: a (...) mental representation of the practical end or goal of their collective effort as good and thus worthy of pursuit. However, I argue that given the subjective nature of phantasia, acting together can be hard. I conclude that since one's phantasia is shaped by one's moral character, a community can achieve a shared phantasma—and thus secure collective action—by means of persuasion, habituation, and education. (shrink)

In this paper I attempt to show how an appeal to a particular kind of collective obligation - a collective obligation falling on an unstructured collective consisting of the world’s population as a whole – can be used to undermine recently influential objections to the idea that there is a human right to health which have been put forward by Gopal Sreenivasan and Onora O’Neill. I take this result to be significant both for its own sake and because it helps (...) to answer a challenge often put to Those who argue for the existence of collective obligations: namely, to explain why the question of whether there are any such obligations might matter from a practical point of view. One way of introducing the objection is to focus on questions of agency. Here I'll argue both that there can be obligations on groups that are not themselves collective agents, and that these can play an important explanatory and clarifcatory role in accounting for obligations which fall on individuals. (shrink)

Improvising musicians—especially towards the “freer” or more “experimental” end of the spectrum—are often seen as having the space to do just about anything. But actual improvisations are (also) processes of what enactivist philosophers Hanne De Jaegher and Ezequiel Di Paolo call “participatory sense-making”; musicians’ active choices are both enabled and constrained by musical phenomena, or “autonomous organising principles”, that emerge between them. Here we explore one example of such phenomena: groove. We begin by theorizing groove more broadly as a “grid” (...) and as “participatory discrepancies”, emphasizing how groove shows a form of agency in processes of sense-making. We then analyze sense-making at work in a case of emergent groove performed by the 21-piece experimental improvising ensemble Splitter Orchester. We conclude that collective sense-making is a dynamic process in which individual agents negotiate not only with each other, but also the shared norms and emergent other-than-human processes that they enact. (shrink)

This paper discusses a deflationary theory of human action developed by John Hyman. His theory of human action comprises two central claims, one about the general nature of action, another about the mark of human agency. An action is the causing of a change by a substance. A human action, as opposed to sub-personal actions, is one that results from the integrated operations of our cognitive and motor systems. Taken together these two claims offer a minimalist theory of human action (...) that does not appeal to intention, the will or the power to choose. The first claim is by now familiar in the literature, not so the second one. This paper offers a critical discussion of this second claim. I shall argue that it sits uncomfortably with certain kinds of mental action. As a fix, I argue that we should appeal to the functional role of the executive system to specify the relevant kind of integration characteristic of human action. I proceed to show how the revised proposal shares the appeal of Hyman’s view while avoiding its difficulties. (shrink)

Stephanie Collins (2019) and Bill Wringe (2016) disagree on how groups bear collective duties. For Collins, in order to bear a collective duty, a group should have a decision-making procedure and only agential groups have such procedures. On this view, social movements cannot bear collective duties if they lack decision-making procedures. Contra Collins, Wringe argues that groups without decision-making procedures can bear collective duties when they share the moral phenomenology that we have a duty together. So on Wringe’s view, social (...) movements can bear collective duties even if they lack decision-making procedures. I agree with Wringe that the decision-making procedure criterion should not be a requirement for collective duties. However, I argue that collective duties are best explained by basic moral certainties because we can explain how group individuals can unite and act autonomously. And I argue that the paradigmatic case of collective duties as basic moral certainties can be found in social movements. (shrink)

How are we to think about our responsibility, both individually and collectively, in relation to revolution? How might recent conversations among philosophers help us think through questions of this sort, and where might we need to do some thinking for ourselves? For guidance, I turn to recent conversation concerning responsibility for collective inaction. My purpose is to reflect on how philosophers have been encouraging us to think about collective responsibility in relation to revolution, making explicit certain underlying assumptions about what (...) a revolution is, when we are justified in bringing one about, and under what circumstances we can hold one another responsible for failing to do so. In the process, I put the academic literature on collective responsibility into conversation with the thought and practice of James and Grace Lee Boggs, a pair of movement intellectuals who devoted their lives to building the next American revolution from their home in Detroit. By contrasting the thought of academic and organic intellectuals concerned with questions of collective responsibility, I hope to generate enough friction to conjure up even better questions—ones that will aid us in developing a more expansive understanding of ourselves in relation to our shared future. (shrink)

After viewing a painting, reading a novel, or seeing a film, audiences often feel that they improve their cognitive standing on the world beyond the canvas, page, or screen. To learn from art in this way, I argue audiences must employ high degrees of epistemic autonomy and creativity, engaging in a process I call ‘insight through art.’ Some have worried that insight through art uses audience achievements to explain an artwork’s cognitive and artistic value, thereby failing to properly appreciate the (...) cognitive and artistic achievements of artists. I move against this worry by arguing that in order to learn via insight through art audiences must collaborate with artists, sharing the labour and credit for the cognitive achievements they co-produce. I claim this co-productive outlook reveals that our appreciation of art’s cognitive and artistic value involves far more audience participation than has hitherto been realised. (shrink)

I defend the view that natural languages are artifacts, made and kept in existence by large groups of people through a process of what I call “curatorial creation.” Drawing on a theory of artifacts as the impositions of mind onto matter, a theory I have developed elsewhere, and making use of the examples of explicitly artifactual languages such as Esperanto and Volapük, I attempt to draw out, and render plausible, the idea that even natural languages can be seen as artifacts.

Background Flourishing and belonging are key concepts for the wellbeing of staff and the success of a profession. Alienation and anomie are distinct types of psycho-social ills which inhibit flourishing and belonging. A better understanding of these may offer hope in preventing many negative work endpoints, including burnout and intention to leave. Objectives To systematically review and narratively synthesise alienation and/or anomie in pharmacists across the globe, reviewing all types of methodological designs, published in peer-reviewed journals. Methods We identified published (...) peer-reviewed research through searching eight electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Web of Science – Core Collection, Scopus, and Google Scholar) and extensive hand/citation searching. Two independent reviewers identified and critiqued eligible studies, extracted data, and synthesised the findings. The synthesis evaluated the focuses, causes, associated factors, and/or consequences of alienation and/or anomie and aligned these to six deductive themes from alienation theory: care; values; meaning; recognition; autonomy; and shared responsibility. Results Searches identified 886 papers, with 47 included in the final results. From the synthesis, ten key causes of alienation and/or anomie were identified; 1) Changing Professional Identity, 2) Reimbursement Models & Corporatisation, 3) Focus on Medicines Rather than People, 4) Misunderstanding & Deprofessionalisation, 5) Environments & Culture, 6) Suboptimal Societal Mandate, 7) Roles Misaligned with Aspirations, 8) Systematic Underutilisation, 9) Lack of Professional Agency, and 10) Value Conflict. From the evidence, there was high confidence that inhibitions of care, values, recognition, and/or autonomy (four of the six deductive themes) were associated with alienation and/or anomie. Conclusion Alienation and/or anomie are present across many countries and regions. This paper helps us understand the aetiology of this complex psycho-social syndrome, a necessary first step in creating an inclusive profession where all pharmacists can flourish. Future research needs to trial new interventions targeted at correcting this professional malady. (shrink)

Realists about corporate agency, according to whom corporate agents may have aims above and beyond those of the individuals who make them up, think that individual agents may switch between participating in individual and corporate agency. My aim is, however, to argue that the inescapability of individual agency spells out a difficulty for this kind of switching – and, therefore, for realism about corporate agency. To do so, I develop Korsgaard’s notion of plight inescapability, which on my take suggests that (...) individual agents are continuously faced with fully exercising their individual agency (absent external limits at the time of its exercise). But then individual agents may not switch to acting as members of corporate agents if the aims of the corporation differ from their own, in the sense that they have different mental state tokens. But as it is possible to participate fully in the action of a corporate entity, this incompatibility between individual and corporate aims suggests that we ought to think of corporate agents as in some sense reducible to individual aims. (shrink)

I argue against group agent realism, or the view that groups have irreducible mental states. If group agents have irreducible mental states, as realists assume, then the best group agent realist explanation of corporate agents features only basic mental states with at most one motivational function each. But the best group agent realist explanation of corporate agents does not feature only basic mental states with at most one motivational function each. So corporate agents lack irreducible mental states. How so? I (...) defend the conditional with an argument from disagreement. On cognitivist approaches to desire, desires function to both motivate and represent the world. Yet such desires are subject to a significant amount of disagreement. Reflection on the folk-psychological properties of desire and belief suggest that this disagreement is better explained by a non-cognitivist approach to desire where they do not have both functions. I then defend the claim that realists are committed to at least some cognitivist motivational states. Using the example of fire brigades, I argue that the best realist explanation of group agents involves mental states with both representational and motivational functions. By modus tollens, corporations then lack irreducible mental states, period. (shrink)

It is common to ascribe agency to some organized collectives, such as corporations, courts, and states, and to treat them as loci of responsibility, over and above their individual members. But since responsibility is often assumed to require free will, should we also think that group agents have free will? Surprisingly, the literature contains very few in-depth discussions of this question. The most extensive defence of corporate free will that I am aware of (Hess [2014], “The Free Will of Corporations (...) (and Other Collectives)”, Philosophical Studies 168 (1): 241–260) rests on a compatibilist understanding which takes reasons-responsiveness and acting from one’s own ‘actional springs’ as key conditions for free will but says little about a condition that free-will libertarians emphasize: the possibility of doing otherwise. In this paper, I will argue that group agents can have free will not only in a (less demanding) compatibilist sense, but also in a recognizably libertarian sense, which includes the possibility of doing otherwise. In developing this account of corporate free will, I will bring together recent work on group agency and recent work on free will. (shrink)

Many moral theories hold individuals responsible for their marginal impact on massive patterns (for instance overall value or equality of opportunity) or for following whichever rules would realise that pattern on the whole. But each of these injunctions is problematic. Intuitively, the first gives individuals responsibility for too much, and the second gives them responsibility for too little. I offer the outlines of a new approach to ethics in collective action contexts. I defend a new collaborative principle that assigns recognisably (...) worthwhile responsibilities to agencies wherever possible. This principle supports a fractal model of moral responsibility, one that favours restructuring divisions of labour in ways that enhance the prospects of recognition at every level of social organisation. This essay is programmatic: starting from a conjecture about the moral significance of recognition, it sketches a new way of approaching a range of collective action problems that combines the importance of the perspectives of both moral and political philosophy. (shrink)

Sometimes, we act in concert with others, as when we go for a walk together, or when two mathematicians try to prove a difficult theorem with each other. An interesting question is what distinguishes the actions of individuals that together constitute some joint activity from those that amount to a mere aggregation of individual behaviours. It is common for philosophers to appeal to collective intentionality to explain such instances of shared agency. This framework generalizes the approach traditionally used to explain (...) individual action: a behaviour is an action just in case it causally follows from the relevant intention. Contemporary philosophers of action, as well as cognitive psychologists, however, have criticised this way of explaining individual actions, favouring instead an approach that puts “control” or “guidance” as the discerning factor: a behaviour is an action just in case the agent controls it, or just in case it is guided by the agent. In this paper, I argue that we should include talk of guidance even in cases of joint action. I first show that problems of deviant causation arise also in cases of joint action, and that therefore guidance is required to face this issue. Then, I show what a “capacity to jointly guide” amounts to for an individual in a group and how joint guidance relates to individual guidance. Joint guidance is actually constituted by task co-representation and the sense of being jointly committed. I argue that an approach that favours joint guidance over collective intentions eschews a lot of metaphysical problems about collective mentality and group subjects, and it is thus more explanatorily fruitful. (shrink)

Most shared agency theorists believe that acting together is a matter of forming and enacting shared intentions. Not all agree, however. A growing number of dissenters have gone minimalist about shared agency by arguing that acting together does not require shared intentions and, hence, does not require the tight practical alignment between participants that shared intentions-based accounts assume. In this paper, I survey recent minimalist accounts of shared agency and explain four reasons why minimalism is attractive. One reason has to (...) do with shared activities engaged in by agents with limited cognitive sophistication. Although such agents (e.g., infants) do not have the capacity for shared intentions, they nonetheless have the capacity for shared agency—a fact that flies in the face of shared-intention-based accounts and thus supports minimalism about shared agency. Another reason minimalism is attractive has to do with the vast number of participants and many institutional intricacies that shared activities sometimes involve. Workers on the assembly line might act together simply by sticking to their institutionally-defined roles in the production plan and thus may not have shared intentions, a fact that, again, supports minimalism. A third reason in favor of minimalism flows from cases of alienated participation in shared agency, i.e., cases where (under some conception of alienated participation) participants feel they are no more than cogs in the machine. A fourth reason concerns shared responsibility. Even unintentional and unwitting participants in shared wrongdoing might share responsibility for the wrongdoing in question, a fact that yet again favors minimalism about shared agency. Our non-ideal social world (that is, a world rife with unjust power relations) increases the odds of alienated participation as well as unintentional and/or unwitting participation in shared wrongdoing. Minimalism, thus, is best geared to illuminate shared agency as we know it under non-ideal circumstances. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that basic forms of collective intentionality such as those involved in atttending, acting and feeling with others essentially involve experiencing and understanding others as co-subjects, that their content is nonconceptual, and that they represent co-subjects and their positions at a level that is prior to the mind-body differentiation.

The actualist/possibilist debate concerns whether, when evaluating an agent’s act, we should hold fixed what else they would freely choose to do. While this debate has shaped our deontic theories over the last several decades, it has not had a similar impact on theorizing about harm and benefit. As a result, the leading accounts of harm and benefit accept actualism. I argue that this makes them susceptible to a number of objections that are avoided by turning to possibilism, and I (...) defend a new possibilist account of harm and benefit that fits into a broader, possibilist-friendly picture of how harm and benefit generate reasons. (shrink)

This paper makes a twofold contribution to the study of expressivity in modal logic. First, we introduce and study the novel concept of conditional expressivity. Second, we use the concept to explore inferential relations between collective deontic admissibility statements for different groups. Negative results on conditional expressivity are stronger than standard (unconditional) inexpressivity results: we show that the well-known inexpressivity results from epistemic logic on distributed knowledge and on common knowledge only concern unconditional expressivity. By contrast, we prove negative results (...) on conditional expressivity in the deontic logic of collective agency. In particular, we consider the full formal language of the deontic logic of collective agency, define a natural class of sublanguages of the full language, and prove that a collective deontic admissibility statement about a particular group is conditionally expressible in a sublanguage from the class if and only if that sublanguage includes a collective deontic admissibility statement about a supergroup of that group. Our negative results on conditional expressivity may serve as a proof of concept for future studies of expressivity in modal logic. (shrink)

Constituent power is an idea with a long tradition in modern political thought but has been largely abandoned since the middle of the twentieth century. Here I offer a new account of constituent power that avoids problems of the classical account, including the paradox of constitutionalism, and clarifies how individuals contribute to creating their shared political order. I argue that constituent power should be understood as an individual power-with: the agential power to constitute a legal order with others. Our individual, (...) banal acts of law-abidingness each partially effect the collective outcome. We generally exercise constituent power unconsciously and automatically, guiding our actions to succeed as defined by law and relying on the legal system to take up our contributions and effectively combine them with others. (shrink)

Contemporary philosophers and scientists have done much to expand our understanding of the structure and neural mechanisms of joint action. But the phenomenology of joint action has only recently become a live topic for research. One method of clarifying what is unique about the phenomenology of joint action is by considering the alternative perspective of agents subsumed in group action. By group action we mean instances of individual agents acting while embedded within a group agent, instead of with individual coordination. (...) Paradigm examples are educational bureaucracies, corporations, and nation states. There is a phenomenological difference between agents whose actions are subsumed within a group action (“the university did X”) as compared to agents who act jointly (“we did x”). Attending to this difference clarifies what is phenomenologically distinctive about joint action. Appealing to an Aristotelian account of agency and to the metaphysical concept of weak emergence, we argue that what makes paradigmatic group action distinctive is the relative inaccessibility, un-revisability, and evaluative simplicity of the group agent’s goal(s) from the perspective of individual agents. This suggests that a distinctive feature of joint agency is the maintenance of a greater sense of individual agency. Put simply, joint agency is often experienced as an enhancement of the individuals’ agency precisely because our paradigmatic agential powers are extended intersubjectively as we act together. In contrast, group agency often involves a loss of the sense of agency, precisely because it is the emergent group agent that maintains the agential powers. (shrink)

Jules Salomone-Sehr argues that an activity is cooperative if and only if, roughly, it consists of several participants’ actions that are (i) coordinated for a common purpose (ii) in ways that do not undermine any participant’s agency. He argues that guidance by shared intention is neither necessary nor sufficient for cooperation. Thereby, he claims to “topple an orthodoxy of shared agency theory." In response, we argue that Salomone-Sehr’s account captures another notion of cooperation than the sociopsychological notion shared agency theory (...) has focused on. Furthermore, we argue that Salomone-Sehr’s interpretation of (ii) is too demanding; it implausibly makes cooperation incompatible with exploitation. (shrink)

We propose a new account of collective moral obligation. We argue that several agents have a moral obligation together only if they each have (i) a context-specific capacity to view their situation from the group’s perspective, and (ii) at least a general capacity to deliberate about what they ought to do together. Such an obligation is irreducibly collective, in that it does not imply that the individuals have any obligations to contribute to what is required of the group. We highlight (...) various distinctive features of our account. One such feature is that moral obligations are always relative to an agential perspective. (shrink)

In this paper, we focus on the moral responsibility of organized groups in light of historicism. Historicism is the view that any morally responsible agent must satisfy certain historical conditions, such as not having been manipulated. We set out four examples involving morally responsible organized groups that pose problems for existing accounts of historicism. We then pose a trilemma: one can reject group responsibility, reject historicism, or revise historicism. We pursue the third option. We formulate a Manipulation Condition and a (...) Guarding Condition as addendums to historicism that are necessary to accommodate our cases of group responsibility. (shrink)

In the face of widespread structural injustice, many people feel hopeless. Is hope valuable for political activism, or is it naive, impractical, or even counterproductive? Here I focus on collective hope as opposed to individual hope. I argue that collective hope can both sustain us in our political commitments and generate new commitments; it is therefore particularly valuable for activist movements and should be cultivated. Through the contemporary example of the prison abolition movement, I address pessimistic and pragmatic worries about (...) political hope, show how collective hope motivates political action through activities of shared imagination, and introduce the concept of holding hope. In order for collective hope to emerge, some members of a group need to hold hope for the collective by sustaining their individual hope and supporting the capacity of other individuals to hope. (shrink)

This paper uses the tools of experimental philosophy to examine the nature of interpersonal normativity in collective action, focusing on cases of immoral collective action and collective action by friends. The results of our two studies, which expand on recent empirical interventions into longstanding debates in social ontology, demonstrate that according to our everyday judgments there are interpersonal obligations in cases of collective action, even when immoral, and that, while friendship elicits judgments of togetherness, it does not affect the norms (...) of collective action. We also situate these results in the philosophical literature and discuss their consequences for a “pluralism” about sociality. (shrink)

True benevolence is, most fundamentally, a desire that the world be better. It is natural and common, however, to frame thinking about benevolence indirectly, in terms of a desire to make a difference to how good the world is. This would be an innocuous shift if desires to make a difference were extensionally equivalent to desires that the world be better. This paper shows that at least on some common ways of making a “desire to make a difference” precise, this (...) extensional equivalence fails. Where it fails, “difference-making preferences” run counter to the ideals of benevolence. In particular, in the context of decision making under uncertainty, coupling a “difference-making” framing in a natural way with risk aversion leads to preferences that violate stochastic dominance, and that lead to a strong form of collective defeat, from the point of view of betterness. Difference-making framings and true benevolence are not strictly mutually inconsistent, but agents seeking to implement true benevolence must take care to avoid the various pitfalls that we outline. (shrink)

In this paper I provide a preliminary account of weakness of political will (political akrasia). My aim is to use theories from the weakness of will literature as a guide to develop a model of the same phenomenon as it occurs in collective agents. Though the account will parallel the traditional view of weakness of will in individuals, weakness of political will is a distinctly political concept that will apply to group agents such as governments, institutional actors, and other political (...) collectives. I further argue that blaming inaction by collective political agents on a “lack of political will” should be understood as blaming a kind of akratic break within the deliberative process, leading to an inability of the collective agent to capitalize on existing group attitudes in order to translate them into policy or legislation. My primary example throughout will be U.S. political inaction with respect to the climate crisis. (shrink)

This article posits and defends an argument that a cosmopolitan common mind approach is essential for resolving global challenges that cannot be resolved by individuals working independently from one another, such as achieving global peace, cleaning the environment, and improving public health. A ‘cosmopolitan common mind’ refers to an intersubjective recognition across states, cultures, or continents. This argument of the cosmopolitan common mind is centred on Philip Pettit’s theory of the common mind and cosmopolitanism. Pettit argues that a common mind (...) is a shared mind. The standard account of cosmopolitanism claims that all human beings are members of the human community. This account is based on three key ideals: individualism, egalitarianism, and universalism. Cosmopolitanism considers individuals rather than groups, nations, or states, giving them equal moral status across the world without any discrimination. A cosmopolitan common mind can direct collective actions across cultures or continents to resolve global problems. Terrorism and climate change are global problems that are not the products of individual actions but collective actions. For instance, pollution is created by many people working together. If people all together create pollution, they all together can stop it. The problems of establishing global peace and clean ecology are similar to preventing pollution because they are beyond the ability of any lone individual to solve. If it is not impossible, there is a need to develop a cosmopolitan common mind to acquire the common good. The research concludes that the cosmopolitan common mind approach can be a promising framework for resolving contemporary global challenges. In qualitative research methodology, I use empirically informed philosophical analysis to critically evaluate documentary resources, including journal papers, academic books, and the proceedings of conferences and congresses. (shrink)

The extended mind thesis states that the mind is not brain-bound but extends into the physical world. The philosophical debate around the thesis has mostly focused on extension towards epistemic artefacts, treating the phenomenon as a special capacity of the human organism to recruit external physical resources to solve individual tasks. This paper argues that if the mind extends to artefacts in the pursuit of individual tasks, it extends to other humans in the pursuit of collective tasks. Mind extension to (...) other humans corresponds essentially to the ‘we-mode’ of cognition, the unique power of human minds to be jointly directed at goals, intentions, states of affairs, or values (which, importantly, differs from having a ‘group mind’). Because the capacity for collective intentionality holds evolutionary and developmental primacy over human-epistemic artefacts relations, the extended mind should not be seen as a special phenomenon, but as a central aspect of the human condition. The original extended mind thesis carried important implications for how the cognitive sciences should proceed. In a version of the thesis that accommodates collective intentionality, these implications would go far deeper than originally assumed. (shrink)

This paper is about when associations, and in particular associations that are part of the state, should be treated as legal persons. I distinguish two forms of association – those that render coherent the agency of their members and those that are group agents – and argue that only the latter should be treated as persons. Following this, I discuss the conditions under which associations that are part of the state can legitimately be group agents.

When do companies deserve moral credit for doing what is right? This question concerns the positive side of corporate moral responsibility, the negative side of which is the more commonly discussed issue of when companies are blameworthy for doing what is wrong. I offer a broadly functionalist account of how companies can act from morally creditworthy motives, which defuses the following Strawsonian challenge to the claim that they can: morally creditworthy motivation involves being guided by attitudes of “goodwill” for others, (...) and these attitudes involve affect and/or phenomenal consciousness, which corporate agents cannot maintain. In response, I show that what matters about being guided by attitudes of goodwill is being directly concerned for others in one’s practical deliberation. Companies can achieve this direct concern through their decision-making procedures without affect or phenomenal consciousness. I also explore how a company’s moral creditworthiness, or lack thereof, should shape stakeholders’ relationship with it. (shrink)

What is involved in acting together with others? Most shared agency theorists endorse the Shared Intention Thesis, i.e., the claim that shared agency necessarily involves shared intentions. This article dissents from this orthodoxy and offers a minimalist account of shared agency—one where parties to shared activities need not form rich webs of interrelated psychological states. My account has two main components: a conceptual analysis of shared agency in terms of the notion of plan, and an explanation of undertheorized agency‐sharing mechanisms. (...) My analysis states that we act together just in case our activities conform to a plan and that plan figures in an explanation of our activities’ joint conformity to it. To sloganize: shared activity is plan‐coordinated activity. Sometimes, plan‐coordination goes by way of shared intentions. However, besides shared intentions, there are at least two additional families of agency‐sharing mechanisms. The first features a central planner who determines the content of a plan and attributes the different parts of that plan to a collection of agents. The second does away with the planner and involves a roughly Darwinian selection of patterns of activity. Both families of mechanisms enable us to act together even in the absence of shared intentions. (shrink)