Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T04:42:02.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Collective Reasons and Agent-Relativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 September 2021

Alexander Dietz Open the ORCID record for Alexander Dietz [Opens in a new window]
Alexander Dietz*
Affiliation:
Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Could it be true that even though we as a group ought to do something, you as an individual ought not to do your part? And under what conditions, in particular, could this happen? In this article, I discuss how a certain kind of case, introduced by David Copp, illustrates the possibility that you ought not to do your part even when you would be playing a crucial causal role in the group action. This is because you may have special agent-relative reasons against participating that are not shared by the group as a whole. I defend the claim that these are indeed cases in which you ought not to do your part in what the group ought to do. I then argue that we can expect these cases to produce a troubling kind of rational conflict.

Type
Article
Information
Utilitas , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2022 , pp. 57 - 69
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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

Anscombe, G. E. M. 1967. Who Is Wronged? Oxford Review 5, 16–17.Google Scholar
Björnsson, Gunnar. 2020. Collective Responsibility and Collective Obligations Without Collective Moral Agents In Saba Bazargan-Forward and Deborah Tollefsen (eds), The Routledge Handbook of Collective Responsibility (New York: Routledge, 2020), 127–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratman, Michael. 1999. I Intend that We J. In Faces of Intention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999) 142–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brink, David O.1994. Moral Conflict and Its Structure. Philosophical Review 103.2, 215–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, Stephanie. 2019. Group Duties: Their Existence and Their Implications for Individuals (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, David. 2007. The Collective Moral Autonomy Thesis. Journal of Social Philosophy 38.3, 369–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copp, David. 2012. The Collective Moral Autonomy Thesis: Reply to Ludwig and Miller. Journal of Social Philosophy 43.1, 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietz, Alexander. 2016. What We Together Ought to Do. Ethics 126.4, 955–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goble, Lou. 2009. Normative Conflicts and the Logic of “Ought”. Noûs 43.3, 450–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirose, Iwao. 2014. Moral Aggregation (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, John F. 2003. Reasoning with Moral Conflicts. Noûs 37.4, 557–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Frank (1987) Group Morality. In Smart, J. J. C., Pettit, Philip, Sylvan, Richard, and Norman, Jean (eds), Metaphysics and Morality: Essays in Honour of J. J. C. Smart (Oxford: Blackwell) 91–110.Google Scholar
Kutz, Christopher. 2000. Acting Together. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ludwig, Kirk. 2007. The Argument from Normative Autonomy for Collective Agents. Journal of Social Philosophy 38.3, 410–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, Ruth Barcan. 1980. Moral Dilemmas and Consistency. Journal of Philosophy 77.3, 121–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McConnell, Terrance. 1988. Interpersonal Moral Conflicts. American Philosophical Quarterly 25.1, 25–35.Google Scholar
Miller, Seumas. 2007. Against the Collective Moral Autonomy Thesis. Journal of Social Philosophy 38.3, 389–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nefsky, Julia. 2019. Collective Harm and the Inefficacy Problem. Philosophy Compass 14.4, https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ridge, Michael. 2017. Reasons for Action: Agent-Neutral vs. Agent-Relative. In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/reasons-agent/.Google Scholar
Schwenkenbecher, Anne. 2018. Making Sense of Collective Moral Obligations: A Comparison of Existing Approaches. In Hess, Kendy, Igneski, Violetta, and Isaacs, Tracy (eds), Collectivity: Ontology, Ethics, and Social Justice (London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2018), 109–32.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1990. Collective Intentions and Actions. In Cohen, Philip R., Morgan, Jerry, and Pollack, Martha E. (eds), Intentions in Communication (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1990), 401–15.Google Scholar
Snedegar, Justin. 2017. Contrastive Reasons (Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taurek, John M. 1977. Should the Numbers Count? Philosophy and Public Affairs 6.4, 293–316.Google ScholarPubMed
Taylor, Erin. 2013. Irreconcilable Differences. American Philosophical Quarterly 50.2, 181–92.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1990. The Realm of Rights (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 2008. Normativity (Chicago: Open Court).Google Scholar
Tuomela, Raimo and Miller, Kaarlo. 1988. We-Intentions. Philosophical Studies 53, 367–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woodard, Christopher. 2008. Reasons, Patterns, and Cooperation (New York: Routledge).Google Scholar
Wringe, Bill. 2016. Collective Obligations: Their Existence, Their Explanatory Power, and Their Supervenience on the Obligations of Individuals. European Journal of Philosophy 24.2, 72–497.Google Scholar