Skip to main content

Can Groups Be Autonomous Rational Agents? A Challenge to the List-Pettit Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Institutions, Emotions, and Group Agents

Part of the book series: Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality ((SIPS,volume 2))

  • 1264 Accesses

Abstract

Christian List and Philip Pettit argue that some groups qualify as rational agents over and above their members. Examples include churches, commercial corporations, and political parties. According to the theory developed by List and Pettit, these groups qualify as agents because they have beliefs and desires and the capacity to process them and to act on their basis. Moreover, the alleged group agents are said to be rational to a high degree and even to be fit to be held morally responsible. And the group agents under consideration are autonomous, according to the List-Pettit Theory, because their beliefs and desires cannot easily be reduced to the beliefs and desires of the groups’ members. I want to show that we should not accept the List-Pettit Theory, because it implies the absurd claim that instrument-user-units, like car-driver-units, are rational agents over and above their user-parts, say drivers. The focus of my argument is on whether instrument-user-units are autonomous in relation to their user-parts on the List-Pettit Theory.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Other prominent arguments for the view that groups can be rational agents have been put forward in French (1984) and May (1987).

  2. 2.

    The conditions of agency in general are discussed in List and Pettit (2011, ch. 1, see esp. pp. 20 and 32).

  3. 3.

    The functionalist foundation of the LP Theory is presented in Pettit (1993, ch. 1–2), Pettit (2009, sec. 1), and List and Pettit (2011, ch. 1, sec. 1–2).

  4. 4.

    “Organizational structure” is the term used in List and Pettit (2011, see esp. pp. 60–64). Pettit (2007a) speaks of “corporations’ constitutions”.

  5. 5.

    The standards are introduced in List and Pettit (2011, ch. 1, sec. 1, and applied to groups in ch. 1, sec. 3, see esp. pp. 35–37). See also, e.g., Pettit (2007b).

  6. 6.

    On a group’s fitness to be held responsible, see Pettit (2007a) and List and Pettit (2011, ch. 7).

  7. 7.

    For details see List and Pettit (2011, ch. 3).

  8. 8.

    For details see List and Pettit (2011, ch. 3, sec. 2). The aggregation of intentional attitudes is the topic of List and Pettit (2011, ch. 2).

  9. 9.

    For comments on earlier versions of this chapter, I want to thank participants at the Conference on Collective Intentionality VII (University of Basel, 2010) and at the spring school Realität und Bedeutung kollektiver Absichtlichkeit—philosophische und rechtliche Aspekte (University of Konstanz, 2011). I am also grateful to Fabian Hundertmark, Jeff Kochan, Peter Schulte, Marc Staudacher, and Joachim Wündisch.

References

  • French, P.A. 1984. Collective and corporate responsibility. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • List, C., and P. Pettit. 2011. Group agency: The possibility, design, and status of corporate agents. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • May, L. 1987. The morality of groups: Collective responsibility, group-based harm, and corporate rights. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 1993. The common mind: An essay on psychology, society and politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 2007a. Responsibility incorporated. Ethics 117: 171–201.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 2007b. Rationality, reasoning and group agency. Dialectica 61: 495–519.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. 2009. The reality of group agents. In Philosophy of the social sciences: Philosophical theory and scientific practice, ed. C. Mantzavinos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vuko Andric .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Andric, V. (2014). Can Groups Be Autonomous Rational Agents? A Challenge to the List-Pettit Theory. In: Konzelmann Ziv, A., Schmid, H. (eds) Institutions, Emotions, and Group Agents. Studies in the Philosophy of Sociality, vol 2. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6934-2_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics