Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:32:21.087Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What Collectives Are: Agency, Individualism and Legal Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 May 2010

David Copp
David Copp
Affiliation:
Simon Fraser University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

An account of the ontological nature of collectives would be useful for several reasons. A successful theory would help to show us a route through the thicket of views known as “methodological individualism”. It would have a bearing on the plausibility of legal positivism. It would be relevant to the question whether collectives are capable of acting. The debate about the ontology of collectives is therefore important for such fields as the theory of action, social and political philosophy, the philosophy of law and the philosophy of social science. I hope to contribute to the debate by proposing an account of collectives, and by showing its theoretical soundness and utility. In its essentials, my proposal is that collectives are “mereological sums” of “stages” of persons linked by a “unity relation”. The influence on this account of some theories of personal identity will perhaps be obvious. But the motivation is different, for it lies at least as much in the ability of the theory to help us deal with the issues already mentioned as in problems concerning the identity of collectives over time. I acknowledge that my proposal is not commonsensical; however, I believe that no account could be both commonsensical and adequate. I will begin by introducing some constraints on a theory of collectives.

Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 23 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 249 - 269
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akhtar, Ali, 1984 “Identity and Quantification”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation presented to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
Bach, Kent, 1975 “Analytic Social Philosophy—Basic Concepts”, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 5, 189–214.Google Scholar
Blau, Peter M., 1974 On the Nature of Organizations. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Boyd, Richard, 1980 “Materialism without Reductionism: Non-Humean Causation and the Evidence for Physicalism”. Unpublished.Google Scholar
Brodbeck, May, editor, 1968 Readings in the Philosophy of the Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bunge, Mario, 1974 “The Concept of a Social Structure”, in Leinfellner, W., Kohler, E., eds., Developments in the Methodology of Social Science, 175–215. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bunge, Mario, 1979 “A Systems Concept of Society: Beyond Individualism and Holism”, Theory and Decision 10, 13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, David, 1979 “Do Nations Have the Right of Self-Determination?”, in French, Stanley G., ed., Philosophers Look at Canadian Confederation, 71–95. Montreal: Canadian Philosophical Association.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald, 1976 Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai, 1964 Modern Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
French, Peter A, 1975 “Types of Collectivities and Blame”, The Personalist 56, 160–169.,Google Scholar
French, Peter A, 1979 “The Corporation as a Moral Person”, American Philosophical Quarterly 16, 207–215.,Google Scholar
French, Peter A 1979b The Scope of Morality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., 1961 The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Johnson, Harry M., 1961 Sociology: A Systematic Introduction. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World.Google Scholar
Kim, Jaegwon, 1978 “Supervenience and Nomological Incommensurables”, American Philosophical Quarterly 15, 149–156.Google Scholar
Leonard, Henry S., and Goodman, Nelson, 1940 “The Calculus of Individuals and its Uses”, The Journal of Symbolic Logic 5, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, David, 1976 “Survival and Identity”, in Rorty, Amelie O., ed., The Identities of Persons, 17–40. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, David, 1982 “Moral Aspects of Legal Theory”, in French, Peter A. et al., eds., Midwest Studies in Philosophy, vol. 7: Social and Political Philosophy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Nollaig, 1982 “Can I Cease to be a Person?”, Dialogue 21, 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Massey, Gerald J., 1976 “Tom, Dick, Harry and All the King's Men”, American Philosophical Quarterly 13, 89–107.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ernest, 1979 The Structure of Science. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
O'Neill, John, editor, 1973 Modes of Individualism and Collectivism. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
Parsons, Talcott, 1961 “Suggestions for a Sociological Approach to Theory of Organizations”, in Etzioni, Amitai, ed., A Sociological Reader on Complex Organizations, 32–46. 2nd ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.Google Scholar
Perry, John, 1976 “The Importance of Being Identical”, in Rorty, Amelie O., ed., The Identity of Persons, 67–90. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis, 1983 “Parthood and Identity Across Time”, The Journal of Philosophy 80, 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, Karl E, 1977 “Enactment Processes in Organizations”, in Stawand, B. M.Salancik, G. R., eds., New Directions in Organizational Behaviour. Chicago: St. Clair Press.Google Scholar