Affiliation:
1. Australian Catholic University, Australia
Abstract
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.
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Reference60 articles.
1. Phenomenal Consciousness, Collective Mentality, and Collective Moral Responosibility;Baddorf;Philosophical Studies,2017
2. Corporate Crocodile Tears? On the Reactive Attitudes of Corporate Agents;Björnsson;Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,2017
3. The Role of Consciousness in Grasping and Understanding;Bourget;Philosophy and Phenomenological Research,2017
4. Virtual Moral Agency, Virtual Moral Responsibility: On the Moral Significance of the Appearance, Perception, and Performance of Artificial Agents;Coeckelbergh;AI & Society,2009
5. No Soul to Damn, No Body to Kick’: An Unscandalized Inquiry into the Problem of Corporate Punishment;Coffee,1981
Cited by
5 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献