By Christian List
Are businesses, church buildings, and states real brokers? Or are they simply collections of people that provide a deceptive impact of team spirit? this question is critical, because the resolution dictates how we must always clarify the behaviour of those entities and even if we must always deal with them as dependable and responsible at the version of person brokers. workforce business enterprise deals a brand new method of that query and is proper, as a result, to a number fields from philosophy to legislations, politics, and the social sciences. Christian checklist and Philip Pettit argue that there fairly are team or company brokers, over and above the person brokers who compose them, and right method of the social sciences, legislation, morality, and politics needs to take account of this truth. in contrast to a few past defences of team organization, their account is solely unmysterious in personality and, regardless of now not being technically tough, is grounded in state of the art paintings in social selection thought, economics, and philosophy.
Read or Download Group agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents PDF
Best political books
- The Political Economy of Fiscal Consolidation in Japan
- Muslim Citizenship in Liberal Democracies: Civic and Political Participation in the West
- Protect and Defend (Kerry Kilcannon, Book 2)
- The sourcebook for political communication research: methods, measures, and analytical techniques
- The Literary Travelogue: A Comparative Study with Special Relevance to Russian Literature from Fonvizin to Pushkin
- The Cement of Society: A Study of Social Order (Studies in Rationality and Social Change)
Additional info for Group agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents
We address it in the next chapter in our discussion of attitude aggregation. Our focus on binary attitudes One assumption underlying our account of group agency – speciﬁcally, jointly intentional group agency – must be made explicit at this stage. We assume that, whatever the group’s organizational structure is, it must lead the group to form binary attitudes, not attitudes that come in degrees of strength. The group agents we are concerned with form and enact their attitudes on the basis of communication among the members, and this requires a method for communicating the proposed or accepted group attitudes.
The ﬂoor constraint is equally important, though less often invoked. The danger addressed in this case is one of under-interpretation rather than over-interpretation: the danger of ascribing intentional attitudes to the agent that fail to register its capacities. Consider, for example, the traditional emotivist or expressivist view that the correct way to ascribe an evaluational attitude – say, a moral one – to human agents is not to say that they believe that something is desirable, or obligatory, but rather to say that they have a non-representational, pro-attitude towards it (Ayer 1982).
When group members deliberate together, they offer each other the kinds of considerations that come up in reasoning: for example, that the evidence supports ‘p’, or that ‘not p’ is inconsistent with something already judged or preferred to be the case. Similarly, when members vote on the group’s attitudes, they usually cast their votes in an on-off manner rather than on a continuous scale. And when they accept the pronouncements of a chair or director, these pronouncements are likely to take the form of a judgment that something is or is not the case, or a preference that something should or should not be the case.
Group agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents by Christian List