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

 

Gilbert on Joint Commitment

Here is our basic picture.

Intentions are associated with commitments.

Shared intentions are associated with commitments to each other (contralateral commitments).

Gilbert thinks there is something missing from this picture: joint commitments ...

Gilbert: joint commitment

‘a commitment

by two or more people

of the same two or more people.’

Contrast personal commitment (by me, of me)

Contrast contralateral commitment (by me, of me, to you)

How should we understand the idea that the commitment is ‘by two or more people’? I suggest that this is simply a matter of collective predication.

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

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

Gilbert (2013, p. 85)

To explain, recall something we talked about a lot back in lecture 1 ...
Here are two sentences:

The tiny drops fell from the bottle.

- distributive

The tiny drops soaked Zach’s trousers.

- collective

I suggest that the contrast here is clear, and isn’t particular to psychological or normative states.

Their thoughtless actions soaked Zach’s trousers.

- ambiguous (really!)

There are also cases which are ambiguous. (Note that the ambiguity is real; if affects how many times Zach’s trousers must have been soaked for the sentence to be true.) I also want to suggest that the fundamental distinction between personal and joint commitments is of the same kind ...

Ayesha and Beatrice are committed to walking

- also ambiguous (?)

- when collective, it is a joint commitment

So my question was, How should we understand the idea that the commitment is ‘by two or more people’? I’ve suggested that this is simply a matter of collective predication. I should warn you, however, that this isn’t something Gilbert actually says, and it isn’t obvious to me that this must be her view.

Gilbert: joint commitment

‘a commitment

by two or more people

of the same two or more people.’

Contrast personal commitment (by me, of me)

Contrast contralateral commitment (by me, of me, to you)

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

Gilbert (2013, p. 85)

I’ve been suggesting that

A joint commitment is a commitment we have collectively,

so

a joint commitment is simply a commitment.

Compare: a collective blocking is simply a blocking.
This explains why there may not be very much to say about what joint commitments are, and in particular, why a reductive account may not be needed.

But Gilbert says

joint commitments have

a special kind of content too

and that joint commitments entail contralateral commitments,

which indicates that

a joint commitment is not simply a commitment.

Gilbert: All joint commitments are commitments to emulate, as far as possible, a single body which does something (2013, p. 64).

‘Any joint commitment can be described in a statement of the following form:’ ‘A, B, and so on (or those with property P) are jointly committed as far as is possible (by virtue of their several actions) to emulate a single doer of X’. \citep[p.~311]{gilbert:2014_book}
On emulation: I guess there is a singular version: an actor emulates a single body which believes that $p$, intends to $\phi$, and so on. Likewise, two actors might for some reason share the role (perhaps a young one and an old one). (Here there is not necessarily any joint commitment, but there are commitments with the contents of those which Gilbert specifies as joint commitments.)

‘What is a “single body” [...]? whereas a single human being constitutes a single body [...], a plurality of human individuals does not in and of itself constitute such a body. [...] however, such a plurality can emulate such a body—one with a plurality not only of limbs, eyes, and ears, but also of noses and mouths’

\citep[p.~116]{gilbert:2014_book}

Gilbert (2013, p. 116)

I love the seemingly random ‘not only of limbs, eyes, and ears, but also of noses and mouths’.

‘a “body” here is understood to be a non-collective body.’

‘some of the things we may share an intention to do are designed for two or more participants ... Sally and Tim are jointly committed to intend as a body to produce, by virtue of the actions of each, a single instance of a tennis game with the two of them as participants in that game’ (Gilbert 2013, p. 117)

Why does Gilbert insist on the form? I don’t think it adds anything to our understanding of joint commitment as such. But it is essential to Gilbert’s use of joint commitment to analyse social phenomena.
So Gilbert’s analysis of joint commitment actually has two parts.

Gilbert on joint commitment

[1] The subject:

‘a commitment

by two or more people

of the same two or more people.’

[2] The content:

All joint commitments are commitments to emulate, as far as possible, a single body which does something (2013, p. 64).

To repeat, I’ve been suggesting that

A joint commitment is a commitment we have collectively,

so

a joint commitment is simply a commitment.

Compare: a collective blocking is simply a blocking.
This explains why there may not be very much to say about what joint commitments are, and in particular, why a reductive account may not be needed.

But Gilbert says

joint commitments have a special kind of content too

and that joint commitments entail contralateral commitments,

which indicates that

a joint commitment is not simply a commitment.

commitment:

personal

contralateral

collective (?)

shared (?)

sense of (?)

How closely should we follow Gilbert in thinking about commitment? I suspect we will eventually need all of these to understand shared agency. As far as I know, Gilbert is the leading authority in this area. And her position is largely untenable. I know that some relatively new people are moving into this area in a big way (especially John Michael), so I expect to see some major developments. And this is asking a lot, I know, but maybe you can contribute in your own work.