Some argue that if an agent intentionally participates in collective wrongdoing, that agent bears responsibility for contributing actions performed by other members of the agent’s collective. Some of these intention-state theorists distribute co-responsibility to group members by appeal to participatory intentions alone, while others require participants to instantiate additional beliefs or perform additional actions. I argue that prominent intention-state theories of co-responsibility fail to provide a compelling rationale for why participation in collective wrongdoing merits responsibility not only for one’s own (...) actions but the contributing actions of others as well. I propose that authorization agreements provide us with a suitable rationale. Authorization may be expressly given, as when one person signs a document authorizing another to advance her aims. Or, authorization may be tacitly or implicitly given by participating in and sufficiently contributing to a common plan. If a person authorizes an agent to act, it is right to blame the authorizer for what the agent does on the authorizer’s behalf. An authorization theory justifies the distribution of co-responsibility by appeal to the morally transformative power of agreement, thereby providing a compelling rationale for why a person may be to blame for contributing actions performed by other agents. (shrink)

The majority of authors in the complicity literature claim that causal accounts of complicity are inadequate because they fail to handle cases of causal overdetermination (Kutz, 2000, 2007, 2020; Lawson, 2013; Driver, 2015a, b; Bazargan-Forward, 2013, 2017, 2022; Mellema, 2016; Aragon and Jaggar, 2018; Williams 2019; Bennett, 2021; Donohue, 2021; Knowles, 2021). However, it has recently been argued that causal accounts can handle such cases (Lepora and Goodin, 2013; Petterson, 2013; Jensen, 2020). In this paper I scrutinize these defenses. I (...) argue while they make some progress towards overcoming the standard overdetermination challenge, they are not fully satisfactory. More importantly, I present a novel challenge raised by cases of overdetermination—the explanatory challenge. I argue that, not only do these recent defenses not overcome this challenge, it is unlikely that any causal account can overcome it. Finally, I suggest that since causal accounts of complicity are inadequate, pluralism about complicity must be correct, because we cannot fully dispense with causation from our understanding of complicity. (shrink)