Keyboard Shortcuts?

×
  • →Next step
  • ←Previous step
  • ↓Skip this slide
  • ↑Previous slide
  • mShow slide thumbnails
  • nShow notes
  • hShow handout latex source
  • NShow talk notes latex source

Click here and press the right key for the next slide (or swipe left)

also ...

Press the left key to go backwards (or swipe right)

Press n to toggle whether notes are shown (or add '?notes' to the url before the #)

Press m or double tap to slide thumbnails (menu)

Press ? at any time to show the keyboard shortcuts

 

Joint Commitment vs the Continuity Thesis

the continuity thesis

‘once God created individual planning agents and ... they have relevant knowledge of each other’s minds, nothing fundamentally new--conceptually, metaphysically, or normatively--needs to be added for there to be modest sociality.’

Bratman (2015, p. 8)

\citep[p.~8]{bratman:2014_book}

1. An account of joint action which does not violate the Continuity Thesis should be preferred.

2. Invoking joint commitment violates the Continuity Thesis.

3. If there is an account of joint action which does not violate the Continuity Thesis, Gilbert’s is incorrect.

Does invoking joint commitment violates the Continuity Thesis?

Gilbert: joint commitment

‘a commitment

by two or more people

of the same two or more people.’

Joint commitments are just commitments. ...
But maybe there is conceptual novelty in the idea that they are commitments by many people

In manifesting any collective phenomenon, we can truly say ‘We have created a third thing, and each of us is one of the parts’

\citep[p.~269]{gilbert:2014_book}

Gilbert (2013, p. 269).

The collective value, belief or intention or whatever is primarily a value, belief or intention of this third thing.
This claim about a ‘third thing’ appears inconsistent with the notion that joint commitment is a commitment we collectively have.

joint commitment is ‘the collective analogue of a personal commitment’

\citep[p.~85]{gilbert:2014_book}

Gilbert (2013, p. 85)

Key contrast: aggregate vs collective (-> next lecture)

So does Gilbert’s invocation of joint commitment violate the continuity thesis?

the continuity thesis

‘once God created individual planning agents and ... they have relevant knowledge of each other’s minds, nothing fundamentally new--conceptually, metaphysically, or normatively--needs to be added for there to be modest sociality.’

Bratman (2015, p. 8)

\citep[p.~8]{bratman:2014_book}

 

1. An account of joint action which does not violate the Continuity Thesis should be preferred.

2. Invoking joint commitment violates the Continuity Thesis.

3. If there is an account of joint action which does not violate the Continuity Thesis, Gilbert’s is incorrect.