Review: collective action, philosophy and law

Mattias Gunnemyr

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2024.2321339

2024-03-22

Philosophical Psychology

Abstract:The anthology Collective Action, Philosophy and Law brings together two key strands of philosophical inquiry: social ontology and jurisprudence. Most of the papers use collective agency as a starting point to get a better grasp on collective entities and activities in the legal domain, but others reverse the approach and use legal examples to refine theories of collective agency. The introduction provides a comprehensive overview of the literature on collective agency, emphasizing issues in jurisprudence and legal practices where collective agency plays a central role. It also offers a detailed overview of the anthology's structure and contents. With thirteen papers organized into four parts, the anthology covers a broad spectrum of topics. While each paper deserves in-depth exploration, this review will provide a brief summary of all the papers, followed by concise discussions of the contributions of Sara Rachel Chant and Bill Wringe.

psychology, multidisciplinary,ethics

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

This paper reviews the book "Collective Action, Philosophy, and Law," which aims to integrate the research in the fields of social ontology and philosophy of law. Most of the articles in the book approach the subject from the perspective of collective agency, in order to better understand collective entities and activities in the legal domain. Some other articles, on the other hand, utilize legal examples to enhance the theory of collective agency. The reviewer first provides an overview of the scholarly discussions on collective agency, emphasizing the core issues of collective agency in legal studies and legal practice. The book is divided into four parts, covering a wide range of topics including the nature of law, legislative intent, practical reasoning and obligation, causation, responsibility, and the relationship between citizens, states, and institutions.

The reviewer specifically mentions the contributions of Sara Rachel Chant and Bill Wringe. Chant discusses corporate rights and non-distributive group responsibility, pointing out that whether non-agentive groups should be attributed with rights and responsibilities depends on their structure and dynamics, rather than whether they have the status of collective agents. She illustrates through the example of Hollywood standoffs that even non-agentive groups can bear non-distributive moral responsibility. However, the reviewer criticizes this example, suggesting that it may not sufficiently prove the non-distributive responsibility of non-agentive groups.

Wringe focuses on expressive punishment theory and argues that, based on Grice's theory of communication, the state cannot sincerely convey the message of a wrongdoer's wrongful behavior to the offender, as the offender may attribute the judgment of wrongful behavior to the state rather than their own moral cognition. He proposes that punishment should be seen as a means of conveying information to the entire society, rather than directly to the offender.

Overall, this book collection aims to deepen our understanding of the role of collective action in a legal context, challenging traditional notions of collective agency, responsibility, and rights.