Abstract
Philosophers increasingly argue that collective agents can be blameworthy for wrongdoing. Advocates tend to endorse functionalism, on which collectives are analogous to complicated robots. This is puzzling: we don't hold robots blameworthy. I argue we don't hold robots blameworthy because blameworthiness presupposes the capacity for a mental state I call 'moral self-awareness'. This raises a new problem for collective blameworthiness: collectives seem to lack the capacity for moral self-awareness. I solve the problem by giving an account of how collectives have this capacity. The trick is to take seriously individuals' status as flesh-and-blood material constituents of collectives. The idea will be: under certain conditions that I specify, an individual can be the locus of a collective's moral self-awareness. The account provides general insights concerning collectives' dependence on members, the boundaries of membership, and the locus of collectives' phenomenology.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 283-304 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | The Philosophical Quarterly |
| Volume | 72 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Apr 2022 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Keywords
- blameworthiness
- collective agency
- collective responsibility
- organisations
- self-awareness
- social ontology
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver