In this essay I discuss if groups can be morally responsible agents over and above the responsibility of their individual members. I consider an important collectivist theory given by List and Pettit arguing that groups can be responsible over its members. I offer some desiderata that a collectivist theory should fulfil and argue that the List and Pettit theory fail to fulfil some of these. Primarily I argue that their theory could come into conflict with a basic ethical and legal principle and that it fails to give a unified account of agency. I draw two conclusions. First, the List and Pettit theory fails to provide a satisfactory collectivist account. And second, a satisfactory collectivist theory ought to give a unified account of agency explaining how the agency side and normative side of responsible group agents fit together.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:UPSALLA1/oai:DiVA.org:liu-174686 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Skott, Anton |
| Publisher | Linköpings universitet, Avdelningen för filosofi, historia, konst och religion |
| Source Sets | DiVA Archive at Upsalla University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Student thesis, info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis, text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
Page generated in 0.0021 seconds