Collective Goals

Click here and press the right key for the next slide.

(This may not work on mobile or ipad. You can try using chrome or firefox, but even that may fail. Sorry.)

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

Collective Goals

background : ordinary, individual action

As this illustrates, some actions involving are purposive in the sense that

among all their actual and possible consequences,

there are outcomes to which they are directed

and the actions are collectively directed to this outcome

so it is not just a matter of each individual action being directed to this outcome.

In such cases we can say that the actions are clearly purposive.

Concerning any such actions, we can ask What is the relation between a purposive action and the outcome or outcomes to which it is directed?

The standard answer to this question involves intention.

An intention (1) specifies an outcome,

(2) coordinates the one or several activities which comprise the action;

and (3) coordinate these activities in a way that would normally facilitate the outcome’s occurrence.

What binds particular component actions together into larger purposive actions? It is the fact that these actions are all parts of plans involving a single intention. What singles out an actual or possible outcome as one to which the component actions are collectively directed? It is the fact that this outcome is represented by the intention.

So the intention is what binds component actions together into purposive actions and links the action taken as a whole to the outcomes to which they are directed.

But is intention the only thing that can link actions to outcomes? I will suggest that motor representations can likewise perform this role.

goal != intention

goals in joint action?

Standard approach is to focus on the joint analog of intentions, namely shared intentions.

Can we focus on something like goals instead?

common goal

A common goal is is a single goal to which the agents’ actions are directed.

[Can illustrate common vs collective goal with current political situation in which the actions of bitter rivals may have a common goal but no collective goal (unlike the political allies).]

This is still not enough. To see why, suppose that the strangers’ actions are no longer coordinated and they are walking different routes to their gate, but that each stranger is concerned that the Marseille flight should leave on time. As each sees it, the only thing she can do to this end is to walk to the gate. Her actions are therefore directed to the same goal as the other’s: to ensure the Marseille flight leaves on time.

So there is one goal to which each of their actions are directed; that is, a common goal. I suspect we still haven’t captured what talk of a ‘we mode’ aims at.

collective goal

‘The injections saved her life.’ [distributive vs collective]

Consider the statement, ‘The injections saved her life.’ This could be true in virtue of her receiving several injections on different occasions, each of which saved her life. In this case, the injections saving her life is just a matter of each injection individually saving her life; this is the distributive interpretation. But the statement is also true if she was given two injections on a single occasion where each injection was necessary but not sufficient to save her life. In this case the injections saving her life is not, or not just, a matter of each injection individually saving her life; this is the collective interpretation.

The difference between distributive and collective interpretations is clearly substantial, for on the distributive interpretation the statement can only be true if her life has been saved more than once, whereas the truth of the collective interpretation requires only one life-threatening situation.

Just as some injections can be collectively life-saving, so some actions can be collectively directed to a goal. For example, consider this sentence:

‘The goal of their actions is to find a new home.’

This can be interpreted distributively: each of their actions is separately directed to finding a new home. But it can also be interpreted collectively: finding a home is an outcome to which their actions are directed and this is not, or not just, a matter of each of their actions being individually directed to finding a home.

To say that an outcome is a _collective goal_ of some actions is just to say that it is an outcome to which the actions are directed and this is not, or not just, a matter of each action being individually directed to that outcome.

No mechanisms! Separate the thing to be explained from the thing which explains it.

Note that collective goals do not plausibly require any kind of intentions or commitments. After all, there is a sense in which some of the actions of swarming bees are directed to finding a nest and this is not, or not just, a matter of each bee’s actions being individually directed to finding a nest. So finding a nest is a collective goal of the bees’ actions.

Step 2: How could some agents’ actions have a collective goal?

Step 2: how could our actions have a collective goal?

there is a single outcome, G, such that

(a) Our actions are coordinated; and

(b) coordination of this type would normally increase the probability that G occurs.

collective goal goal outcome

A collective goal (df):

an outcome to which two or more agents’ actions are directed

where

this is not, or not only,

a matter of each action being directed to that outcome.

We replace the old question about distinguishing joint actions from parallel but merely individual actions with a set of questions about features associated with joint action, including this one.

Keyboard Shortcuts?f

Collective Goals

Keyboard Shortcuts`?f`