The weak collective agential autonomy thesis

Disputatio 4 (31):215 - 234 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Can a collective be an agent in its own right? Can it be the bearer of moral and other properties that we have traditionally reserved for individual agents? The answer, as one might expect, is ‘In some ways yes, in other ways no.’ The way in which the answer is ‘Yes’ has been described recently by Copp; I intend to discuss his position and defend it against objections. This describes a fairly weak form of autonomy that I will claim does not require the abandonment of methodological individualism or our commonplace intuitions about individual responsibility. I will also discuss, and reject, a stronger conception of autonomy suggested especially by the work of Pettit that would result in methodological individualism.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,219

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-07-06

Downloads
60 (#257,746)

6 months
4 (#698,851)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

David Botting
De La Salle University (PhD)

Citations of this work

The Collectivity of Blaming.David Botting - 2016 - Kriterion - Journal of Philosophy 30 (3):1-39.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Groups with minds of their own.Philip Pettit - 2011 - In Alvin I. Goldman & Dennis Whitcomb (eds.), Social Epistemology: Essential Readings. New York: Oxford University Press.
How to Share an Intention.J. David Velleman - 1997 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57 (1):29-50.
Group agency and supervenience.Philip Pettit - 2006 - Southern Journal of Philosophy 44 (S1):85-105.
The collective moral autonomy thesis.David Copp - 2007 - Journal of Social Philosophy 38 (3):369–388.
Plural agents.Bennett W. Helm - 2008 - Noûs 42 (1):17–49.

View all 7 references / Add more references