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
1. What is team reasoning?
2. In what sense does team reasoning give rise to aggregate agents?
3. How might team reasoning be used in constructing a theory of shared agency?
‘collective intentions are the product of a distinctive mode of practical reasoning, team reasoning, in which agency is attributed to groups.’
(Gold & Sugden, 2007)
How?
aggregate subject
previously ...
aggregate subjects constituted by self-reflection (Pettit, 2014)
observation: appears to presuppose shared intention
‘collective intentions are the product of a distinctive mode of practical reasoning, team reasoning, in which agency is attributed to groups.’
(Gold & Sugden, 2007)
To which aggregate subjects (‘groups’) is agency attributed
in team reasoning?
‘[A] team exists to the extent that its members take themselves to be members of it.
[T]o take oneself to be a member of a team is
(Sugden, 2000)
Under what conditions might you and I
take* ourselves to be members of a you-and-I team?
*in Sugden’s special sense of ‘take’
Player X | |||
high | low | ||
Player Y | high | 2 2 | 0 0 |
low | 0 0 | 1 1 |
Prisoner X | |||
resist | confess | ||
Prisoner Y | resist | 3 3 | 0 4 |
confess | 4 0 | 1 1 |
Why suppose that team reasoning explains how
there could be aggregate subjects?
Compare two routes to aggregate subjects.
team reasoning
reflectively constituted aggregate subject
formal
informal
need not be reflective
reflective
can be short-term
long-term
need not depend on shared agency
depends on shared agency
requires preferences
does not require preferences?
Why suppose that team reasoning explains how
there could be aggregate subjects?
transitivity
For any A, B, C ∈ S: if A⪯B and B⪯C then A⪯C.
completeness
For any A, B ∈ S: either A⪯B or B⪯A
continuity
‘Continuity implies that no outcome is so bad that you would not be willing to take some gamble that might result in you ending up with that outcome [...] provided that the chance of the bad outcome is small enough.’
independence
roughly, if you prefer A to B then you should prefer A and C to B and C.
Steele & Stefánsson (2020, p. §2.3)
autonomy
‘There is ... nothing inherently inconsistent in the possibility that every member of the group has an individual preference for y over x (say, each prefers wine bars to pubs) while the group acts on an objective that ranks x above y.’
(Sugden, 2000)
dilemma
autonomy -> rare for team reasoning to occur because axioms
no autonomy -> no aggregate subject after all (just cooperative games)
team reasoning
reflectively constituted aggregate subject
formal
informal
need not be reflective
reflective
can be short-term
long-term
need not depend on shared agency
depends on shared agency
requires preferences
does not require preferences?
1. What is team reasoning?
2. In what sense does team reasoning give rise to aggregate agents?
3. How might team reasoning be used in constructing a theory of shared agency?