Hostname: page-component-5cf477f64f-rdph2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-31T05:30:47.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

COLLECTIVE OBLIGATIONS, GROUP PLANS AND INDIVIDUAL ACTIONS

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2016

Allard Tamminga  and
Hein Duijf
Allard Tamminga
Affiliation:
University of Groningen, Oude Boteringestraat 52, 9712 GL Groningen, the Netherlands and Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, 3512 BL Utrecht, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]. URL: http://www.rug.nl/staff/a.m.tamminga/.
Hein Duijf
Affiliation:
Utrecht University, Janskerkhof 13, 3512 BL Utrecht, the Netherlands. Email: [email protected]. URL: http://www.uu.nl/staff/hwaduijf/.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

If group members aim to fulfil a collective obligation, they must act in such a way that the composition of their individual actions amounts to a group action that fulfils the collective obligation. We study a strong sense of joint action in which the members of a group design and then publicly adopt a group plan that coordinates the individual actions of the group members. We characterize the conditions under which a group plan successfully coordinates the group members’ individual actions, and study how the public adoption of a plan changes the context in which individual agents make a decision about what to do.

Keywords

collective obligationteam reasoningcollective intentionalitycooperationjoint action
Type
Articles
Information
Economics & Philosophy , Volume 33 , Issue 2 , July 2017 , pp. 187 - 214
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anderson, E. 2001. Unstrapping the straitjacket of ‘preference’: a comment on Amartya Sen’s contributions to philosophy and economics. Economics and Philosophy 17: 21–38.Google Scholar
Bacharach, M. 1999. Interactive team reasoning: a contribution to the theory of cooperation. Research in Economics 53: 117–147.Google Scholar
Bacharach, M. 2006. Beyond Individual Choice: Teams and Frames in Game Theory, ed. Gold, N. and Sugden, R.. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baltag, A., Moss, L.S. and Solecki, S.. 1998. The logic of public announcements, common knowledge, and private suspicions. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on Theoretical Aspects of Rationality and Knowledge (TARK 1998), ed. Gilboa, I., 43–56. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.Google Scholar
Bratman, M.E. 1987. Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bratman, M.E. 2014. Shared Agency: A Planning Theory of Acting Together. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chant, S.R. 2007. Unintentional collective action. Philosophical Explorations 10: 245–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauthier, D. 1975. Coordination. Dialogue 14: 195–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, M. 1999. Obligation and joint commitment. Utilitas 11: 143–163.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 2006a. A Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Gilbert, M. 2006b. Who’s to blame? Collective moral responsibility and its implications for group members. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 30: 94–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gold, N. 2012. Team reasoning, framing and cooperation. In Evolution and Rationality: Decisions, Co-operation and Strategic Behaviour, ed. Okasha, S. and Binmore, K., 185–212. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gold, N. and Sugden, R.. 2007. Collective intentions and team agency. Journal of Philosophy 104: 109–137.Google Scholar
Harsanyi, J.C. and Selten, R.. 1988. A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Hilpinen, R., ed. 1971. Deontic Logic: Introductory and Systematic Readings. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, J.F. 1996. Agency and obligation. Synthese 108: 269–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horty, J.F. 2001. Agency and Deontic Logic. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaacs, T. 2011. Moral Responsibility in Collective Contexts. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Jackson, F. 1987. Group morality. In Metaphysics and Morality, ed. Pettit, P., Sylvan, R. and Norman, J., 91–110. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kooi, B. and Tamminga, A.. 2008. Moral conflicts between groups of agents. Journal of Philosophical Logic 37: 1–21.Google Scholar
Kutz, C. 2000. Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D.K. 1969. Convention: A Philosophical Study. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nash, J. 1951. Non-cooperative games. Annals of Mathematics 54: 286–295.Google Scholar
Osborne, M.J. and Rubinstein, A.. 1994. A Course in Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Plaza, J. 1989. Logics of public communications. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Methodologies for Intelligent Systems (ISMIS 1989): Poster Session Program, ed. Emrich, M.L., Pfeifer, M.S., Hadzikadic, M. and Ras, Z.W., 201–216. Charlotte, NC: Oak Ridge National Laboratory.Google Scholar
Regan, D. 1980. Utilitarianism and Co-operation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roy, O. 2009a. Intentions and interactive transformations of decision problems. Synthese 169: 335–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, O. 2009b. A dynamic-epistemic hybrid logic for intentions and information changes in strategic games. Synthese 171: 291–320.Google Scholar
Scanlon, T.M. 1998. What We Owe to Each Other. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
Schelling, T.C. 1960. The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 1993. Thinking as a team: towards an explanation of non-selfish behavior. Social Philosophy and Policy 10: 69–89.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 1995. A theory of focal points. Economic Journal 105: 533–550.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 2000. Team preferences. Economics and Philosophy 16: 175–204.Google Scholar
Sugden, R. 2003. The logic of team reasoning. Philosophical Explorations 6: 165–181.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2000. Cooperation: A Philosophical Study. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2005. We-intentions revisited. Philosophical Studies 125: 327–369.Google Scholar
Tuomela, R. 2013. Social Ontology: Collective Intentionality and Group Agents. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Ditmarsch, H., Hoek, W. van der and Kooi, B.. 2007. Dynamic Epistemic Logic. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
van Hees, M. and Roy, O.. 2008. Intentions and plans in decision and game theory. In Reasons and Intentions, ed. Verbeek, B., 207–226. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar