Group Agency and Responsibility

This topic asks whether groups such as corporations and states can be genuine agents in their own right, and whether they can bear moral and legal responsibility distinct from that of their members.

Definition

A group agent is a collective entity that has and acts on its own beliefs and intentions in a way not simply reducible to those of its members; collective responsibility is the attribution of moral or legal responsibility to such a group.

Scope

Covers theories of corporate and group agency, the discursive dilemma and judgment aggregation, the conditions under which groups can be held morally or legally responsible, and the responsibility of unorganized collectives. It builds on collective intentionality and bears on legal personhood.

Core questions

• Can a group be a genuine agent over and above its members?
• Under what conditions can a group be held morally responsible?
• Does group responsibility eliminate or supplement individual responsibility?
• Can an unorganized collection of individuals bear responsibility at all?

Key concepts

• group agency
• corporate moral personhood
• the discursive dilemma
• judgment aggregation
• internal decision structures
• collective responsibility
• the responsibility gap

Key theories

Group agency

List and Pettit argue that organized groups with procedures for forming collective attitudes can be rational agents whose judgments are not reducible to their members', and that such agents can be fit to be held responsible.

Corporate moral responsibility

French argues that corporations possess internal decision structures that convert individual acts into corporate intentional actions, making the corporation itself a moral person that can bear responsibility.

Responsibility of random collectives

Held argues that even an unorganized collection of individuals can be held morally responsible for failing to act when a 'reasonably foreseeable' decision procedure was available to them to prevent harm.

History

Debate over whether collectives can be responsible was raised by Held (1970) and by responses to mid-century questions of war guilt. French (1984) defended corporate moral personhood, and List and Pettit's Group Agency (2011) gave a rigorous account grounded in the discursive dilemma and judgment-aggregation theory.

Debates

Are group agents real or merely a fiction?

Whether organized groups are genuine agents irreducible to their members, as List and Pettit and French argue, or whether all talk of group agency is shorthand for facts about individuals.

Group vs. individual responsibility

Whether attributing responsibility to a group lets individual members off the hook, or whether group and individual responsibility can coexist without a 'responsibility gap'.

Key figures

• Christian List
• Philip Pettit
• Peter French
• Virginia Held

Seminal works

• list2011
• french1984

Frequently asked questions

Can a corporation be morally responsible, not just its employees?

On theories like French's and List and Pettit's, yes: because corporations have decision structures that produce genuinely corporate intentions and actions, the corporation itself can be a bearer of moral responsibility alongside the individuals within it.