Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Shared Agency and Mutual Obligations: A Pluralist Account.Jules Salomone - 2023 - Philosophical Quarterly 73 (4):1120-1140.
    Do participants in shared activity have mutual obligations to do their bit? This article shows this question has no one-size-fits-all answer and offers a pluralist account of the normativity of shared agency. The first part argues obligations to do one's bit have three degrees of involvement in shared activity. Such obligations might, obviously, bolster co-participants’ resolve to act as planned (degree 1). Less obviously, there also are higher and lower degrees of involvement. Obligations to do one's bit might provide our (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Conditional Intentions and Shared Agency.Matthew Rachar - 2023 - Noûs.
    Shared agency is a distinctive kind of sociality that involves interdependent planning, practical reasoning, and action between participants. Philosophical reflection suggests that agents engage in this form of sociality when a special structure of interrelated psychological attitudes exists between them, a set of attitudes that constitutes a collective intention. I defend a new way to understand collective intention as a combination of individual conditional intentions. Revising an initial statement of the conditional intention account in response to several challenges leads to (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Collective Intentions.Matthew Rachar & Jules Salomone - 2023 - In Mortimer Sellers & Stephan Kriste (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. Springer.
    This entry surveys main accounts of collective intentions.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Two Dimensions of Responsibility: Quality and Competence of Will.Taylor Madigan - 2023 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association:1-14.
    Pure quality of will theories claim that ‘the ultimate object’ of our responsibility responses (i.e., praise and blame) is the quality of our will. Any such theory is false—or so I argue. There is a second dimension of (moral) responsibility, independent of quality of will, that our responsibility responses track and take as their object—namely, how adroitly we are able to translate our will into action; I call this competence of will. I offer a conjectural explanation of the two dimensions (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark