PluralSubjectsIV.

APluralSubjectAccountofCollec6veInten6on

Jointac6vityisinten6onalinvirtueofourpluralself-knowledgeinthesamewaymyindividualac6vityisinten6onalinvirtueofmysingularself-knowledge.Jointac8vityisinten8onalintermsofcollec8veinten8onality;what’scollec8veaboutcollec8veinten8onalityisthatitisplurallyself-known.Thisformoftheinten8onalityinques8onisthesubject.

1.  Content-Account:Wedistrintendtoφcoll.2.  Subject-Account: Wecollintendtoφcoll.3.  Mode-Account:Wedistrwecoll-intendtoφcoll.

✗✗

✓

Subjec8vityPre-reflec6ve/non-thema6cself-consciousnessImmediate/first-”personal”self-awareness

Non-observa6onal/groundlessself-knowledge

Singular Plural

PluralSubject-Accounts:Problems•  Thepe88oprincipii/infiniteregressproblem:AccordingtoGilbert,theforma6onofaPluralSubjectinvolvesa(howeverimplicit)communica6onprocedure.Suchaprocedureisaninten6onaljointac6on,andwouldthuspresupposetheforma6onofanotherPluralSubject.

•  Thespookinessproblem/metaphysicalworry:Ifthetwoofusjointlyintendtogoforawalktogether,therearetwosubjectsinvolved,notthree:thereisnoaddi6onal„We“having„our“inten6on.

àHowdoesNewPluralSubjectTheoryaddresstheseissues?

PluralSubject-Accounts:Problems•  Thepe88oprincipii/infiniteregressproblem:AccordingtoGilbert,theforma6onofaPluralSubjectinvolvesa(howeverimplicit)communica6onprocedure.Suchaprocedureisaninten6onaljointac6on,andwouldthuspresupposetheforma6onofanotherPluralSubject.

•  Thespookinessproblem/metaphysicalworry:Ifthetwoofusjointlyintendtogoforawalktogether,therearetwosubjectsinvolved,notthree:thereisnoaddi6onal„We“having„our“inten6on.

àHowdoesNewPluralSubjectTheoryaddresstheseissues?

TheRegressProblemSolved•  InGilbert‘saccount,thereissomethingwe(atleastimplicitly)havetodotogetherinordertoshareaninten6on(wehavetoagree)– asjointac6onhastobecollec6velyintended,thissetsoffaregress.

•  PluralPre-Reflec6veSelf-Awarenessdoesnotpresupposeanotherjointac6on!

TheRegressProblemisnotSpecifictothePlural!

•  Considerthefollowingview:inordertodosomethinginten6onally,youhavetoformaninten6on.Youformaninten6onbydecidingtodoit.

•  Decidingissomethingyouhavetodointen6onally.Inordertodecide,youhavetodecidetodecideetc.etc.pp.

àThefeatureinvirtueofwhichthisviewisabsurdinthesingularcase,itisabsurdinthepluralcase!Justasyousome6mesintend„justlikethat“,wesome6mesintend„justlikethat“,andifweengageinajointdecisionprocedure,itisjustlikethatàthepre-reflec8vecaseisacondi8onofthepossibilityofthereflec8vecase!

...butisn‘tthisspooky?Itiscounterintui6vetoassumethatthereissuchathingas“thewe”;ifthetwoofusareac6ngtogether,it’sjustyouandI!•  IfyouandIintendtoφtogether,itisnotthecasethat“thewe”(ratherthanyouandI)intendstoφ(andpullsofftheφ-ing).

•  Thereisnoaddi6onalsubject;IfyouandIgoforawalktogether,it’sjustthetwoofusoutthere,notthree:it’snotthatthere’sathirdsubjectsomehowcomingalongwithus.

•  There’snothing“overandabove”ourheadsthatisorhasourinten6on.

„TheI“isJustasSpookyas„TheWe“!TheSpooky“We” TheSpooky“I”

IfyouandIintendtoφtogether,itisnotthecasethat“theWe”(ratherthanyouandI)intendstoφ(anddoestheφ-ing).IfyouandIgoforawalktogether,it’sjustthetwoofusoutthere,notthree:it’snotthatthere’sathirdsubjectsomehowcomingalongwithus.There’snothing“overandabove”ourheadsthatisorhasourinten6on.

IfIintendtoφ,itisnotthecasethattheresomethingofthesortof“theI”thatdoes(orhas)myintending(otherwise,whyshouldIcareaboutwhatthat“I”intends?)IfIintendtogoforawalk,it’sjustmeoutthere,thereisnosuchthingas“theI”comingalongwithme.Thereisnohomunculuswithorwithinmethathasmyinten6on.

ToConclude•  The“spookiness”ofthepluralsubjectcomesfroma

misconcep6onofwhatitistobeasubject,notfromitspluralform.

•  Hume,Fichte,Husserl,Heidegger,Sartre,Wiagenstein(andcountlessothers):Thewayinwhichmindissubjec8ve(“somebody’s”)isnotintermsof“theself”/”theI”/”thewe”intermsofsomeextraen8tythatissomehowrepresentedintheintending.

•  Thesubjectisanimmanentfeatureoftheintendingitself(itsbeingself-knowledge).

•  Conceivedofinthisway,thepluralsubjectisnotspookyatall.àNopar8cularexorcismisneeded(otherthansomere-reading

oftheclassics);wecansafelyadoptthispluralsubjectviewofCollInt.

Collec6veResponsibilityofRandomCollec6ons

PluralSelf-KnowledgeAmongStrangers

TheTopic

•  A,BandC(knowthatthey)shouldφ.•  Φisaninten6onaljointac6on.•  A,B,andCarearandomcollec6onofindividuals.

TheParadigmCase(cf.Held1970)

Inasparselyoccupiedsubwaycar,passengerYisbeingharassedandphysicallyabusedbyZ,anexcep6onallystrongindividual.Itisobviousthatnoneofthefellowpassengersintherandomcollec6onR–individualsA,B,C–couldstoptheabusealone(orincoopera6onwithY)withoutseriousriskstohisorherownhealth.Ifatleasttwoofthefellowpassengerscooperate(whichtheycould),theabusecouldbestoppedwithoutgreatrisks.Nojointac6onensues.

Who’stoBlame?

1.   Eachindividual?(distribu8ve)But:giventhesitua6on,neitherA,B,orCwasmorallyrequiredtocomingtothevic6m‘said.

2.   Thecollec8on?(collec8ve)But:howcancollec6vesbeheldresponsible,especiallyiftheyarenotanagent?

Held’s(1970)Solu6on

Randomcollec6onscanbemorallyresponsible:“wewouldholdtherandomcollec6onmorallyresponsibleforitsfailuretoactasagroup”(477)Butthisresponsibilityisdistribu8ve,notcollec8ve:“ifrandomcollec6onRismorallyresponsibleforthefailuretodoA,theneverymemberofRismorallyresponsibleforthefailuretodoA,although,perhaps,insignificantlydifferentpropor6ons”(ibid.).

Whatexactlyis“Ac6onA”?-  Ifitis“comingtothevic6m‘said“,thedistribu6ondoesnotwork,asnoindividualsismorallyresponsibletocomingtothevic6m‘said.

-  Ifitis“subduingthebully“,Held’sdistribu6veaccountisincompa6blewith“oughtimpliescan”.

-  Amoreplausibledescrip6on:responsibilityisdistribu6vewithregardtosomethinglike“ac6ngsoastomakeithappenthattherandomcollec6oncooperatestosubduethebully”à“collec8viza8onduty”

AProblemwithThisAccount

Iftheresponsibilitytherandomcollec6on’sfailuretoactisreducedtoadistribu6onofeachmember’sresponsibilitytomakeitthecasethattheyact,acentralfeatureofthefailureinques6onislost:A,B,andCarenotjustindividuallyresponsiblefornotmakingitthecasethattheyact.Rather,theyareresponsiblefornotac8ng!Thisresponsibilityiscollec8ve,andthisiswhatislostinthisaccount.

ADisanalogyAssumeIdon’tshowupatthescheduled6meforourmee6ng.Thereasonis,asIexplain,thatIplayedaroundwithmycalendarappandaccidentallydeletedthisentrywithoutno6cing,thusfailingtomakeitthecasethatIshowup.Itseemsnaturalthatyounowblamemeformyplayingaroundwithmyapp(failingtomakeitthecasethatIshowup),ratherthanblamingmefornotshowingup(analogytothecollec6vecase).Butifyoudoso,thisisbecausethisimpliesthatIwantedtocomeandwouldhavecomehadInotfailedtoremember.Suchblameworksonlyagainstabackgroundof“blameless”agency.Itmayseemthatthereisnosuchbackgroundintherandomcollec6oncase,asthefailureseemstobeafailureincons8tu8ngagency.

ExploringtheCollec6veSideTheresponsibilityfornotac8ngisthecollec6on’s,itisnotthepar6cipa6ngindividuals’.Chant’s(201)recommenda6on,basedonamoreradicalexample(“TheHollywoodStandoff”)thatblocksthedistribu6ve“blameworthyfailuretocollec6vize”-charge:let’sbitethebullet,some6mescollec6vesareresponsiblewithoutbeingagents!But:insofarasresponsibilityis6edtosuchreac6veaotudesasreproachandtheprac6ceofblame,responsibilitytargetsagency.

SketchinganAlterna6veRouteThecoreofagencyisnotinitsestablishedorganiza8onalstructure,butinitssubjec8vity.Thecoreofsubjec6vityisinafeaturethathasbeenlabeledwithsuchtermsasself-consciousness,self-awareness,self-knowledge,dese-thought(thespecialfirst-personalknowledgeIhaveofwhatitisI’mdoing/Ishouldbedoing).Ourrandomcollec6oncanrighqullybecalledcollec6velyresponsibleifithadafirst-personperspec6veintheplural(Ifweknew[first-personplurally]whatitwasweweredoing/weshouldhavedone)

EpistemicCondi6onsofResponsibility

“Toholdanindividualresponsibleforanactrequiresthathebeawareofthenatureoftheac6on,inthesensethatheisnotdoingAinthebeliefthatheisdoingB”(Held1970,472).But:thisneedstobemademoreprecise:theawareness/beliefneedstobeoftherightkind:IcandoA,andknowthatIdoA,ands8llnotberesponsiblebecauseitisnotintherightwaythatIknowofmethatI’mdoingA!

ErnstMach’sCase“Notlongago,ateratryingrailwayjourneybynight,whenIwasvery6red,Igotintoanomnibus,justasanothermanappearedattheotherend.‘Whatashabbypedagoguethatis,thathasjustentered,’thoughtI.Itwasmyself:oppositemehungalargemirror.”(ErnstMach,AnalysisofSensa6on,1887,3)àMachknowsthatheisshabbilyclothed,butfailstoknowit“intherightway”(dese,first-personally).Thefailureisnotintheamountofknowledge,butinthekindofknowledge.

AFailuretoKnow“IntheRightWay”Considerthismodifica6onofErnstMach’scase:Ienterabus.Iseeashabby-lookingmanenteringthebusfromtheotherside.Also,Iseethatthismanisbehavingrecklesslyinblockinganailingelderlypersonwhoisbehindthatman.Icorrectlyjudgethatthisman’sbehaviorismorallyobjec6onable.IfailtorealizethatI’mlookingintoamirror.Thatmanisme.I’mdoingthemorallyobjec6onablething.Inthiscase,Held’sepistemiccondi6onsaresa6sfied:IknowwhatIamdoing,anddonotmisdescribewhatitisIamdoing,justthatIknowitthird-personallyandnotfirst-personally.However:ifthereisnowayIshouldhaverealizedthatI’mlookingintoamirror(andthatthereisapassengerbehindme),I’mnotmorallyblameworthyàHeld’sepistemiccondi6onisincomplete!

Held’sEpistemicCondi6onModified

“Toholdanindividualresponsibleforanactrequiresthathebeawareofthenatureoftheac6on,inthesensethatheisnotdoingAinthebeliefthatheisdoingB”(Held1970,472)– andtheindividualneedstoknowwhatheorsheisdoingintherightway,thatis,first-personally.

HowThisCarriesOvertothePlural

Arandomcollec6onofindividualscanbemorallyresponsibleifitthecasethat-  asufficientnumberofthemknowsthattheyshouldacttogether

-  thatknowledgeis“ofthem”(plurally)intherightway(not“thegroupshouldact”but“weshouldact;pluralself-knowledge).

TheParallelTrainScenarioWe’rethepassengersinthesubwaytrain,andwe’relookingoutofthewindow.Thereisanothersubwaytrainrunningatthesamespeedontheneighboringtrack.Theothersubwaytrainisunlit,butasthelightsofourowntrainaremirroredintheothertrain’swindows,we’reseeingwhat’sgoingoninourowntrain,thinkingit’shappeningintheothertrain.

TheParallelTrainScenarioAssumethatwhatwe’reseeingisthebullyabusinghisvic6m–andweareoutragedatthefellowpassengerswhomweseelookingaaen6velyoutofthewindowinsteadofcomingtothevic6m’said.Inthiscase,wearefully“awareofthemoralnatureoftheac6on”,andwestronglycondemnwhatwearedoing;butwefailtobeawareoftheac6on–orrather,omission–asours:theknowledge,orawarenessinques6onisnotofthefirst-personalkind.

TheParallelTrainScenarioWhatisthatfirst-personalawarenessthatismissinginourparalleltraincase?Itmightseemsthateachofusfailstoknowthatitishisorherowntrainheorsheislookingat.Inthisview,thewayoutofthemisconcep6onisforatleastoneofustorecognizehim-orherselfinthemirrorimage,andthentoalerttheothers.But:youneednotrecognizeyourselfinthemirror.Recognizinganyotherfellowtraveller,orjustourowntrain,willdo.Therequiredreasoningneednotrunthroughamomentof“oh,it’sme!”,asthereareotherequallyplausiblewaystothedecisiveinsight:“Oh,itsus!”

WhatisPluralSelf-Knowledge?•  „TheSubjectof‚Weintend’.“Forthcomingin:PhenomenologyandtheCogni8veSciences..

•  “OnKnowingWhatWe’reDoingTogether:GroundlessGroupSelf-KnowledgeandPluralSelf-Blindness.”In:M.Brady/M.Fricker(eds.,2016):TheEpistemicLifeofGroups:EssaysintheEpistemologyofCollec8ves.Oxford,OxfordUniversityPress,51-74.

•  PluralSelf-Awareness.PhenomenologyandtheCogni8veSciences13,2014,7-24.

ReconsideringtheCase

Inasparselyoccupiedsubwaycar,passengerYisbeingharassedandphysicallyabusedbyZ,anexcep6onallystrongindividual.Therearethreefellowpassengers,A,B,andC,whocouldhelpiftheyteamup.

HowDoesitMaaer?Scenario1:A,B,andCsitinseparatecompartments.Theviewbetweenthepassengersisblocked,thougheachcanreasonablyassumethattheremightbeothersinthecar.àinthiscase,thereisnopluralself-awareness:Held’sdistribu8veviewisright,allthereistotherandomcollec6on’sresponsibilityiseachone’sfailuretogatheragrouptogether!Scenario2:A,B,Ccanseeeachother,anditisopenbetweenthemthattheycanseeeachother;theyexchangeglances.àinthiscase,thereispluralself-awareness:Held’sdistribu6veviewismistaken,thereismorethanthedistribu6veviola6onofcollec6viza6ondu6es,butagenuinesenseinwhichwhatthey,collec6vely,areresponsibleforistheirfailuretoact!