Midwest Studies in Philosophy 15 (1):1-14 (1990)
|Abstract||The everyday concept of a social group is approached by examining the concept of going for a walk together, an example of doing something together, or "shared action". Two analyses requiring shared personal goals are rejected, since they fail to explain how people walking together have obligations and rights to appropriate behavior, and corresponding rights of rebuke. An alternative account is proposed: those who walk together must constitute the "plural subject" of a goal (roughly, their walking alongside each other). The nature of plural subjecthood, the thesis that social groups are plural subjects, and the relation of these ideas to Rousseau's and Hobbes's, are briefly explored.|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
No categories specified
(categorize this paper)
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Margaret P. Gilbert (2005). Shared Values, Social Unity, and Liberty. Public Affairs Quarterly 19 (1).
Lesley Kuhn (2007). Why Utilize Complexity Principles in Social Inquiry? World Futures 63 (3 & 4):156 – 175.
Ezio Di Nucci (2012). Priming Effects and Free Will. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 20 (5):725-734.
Ronald Paul Hill (2004). The Socially-Responsible University: Talking the Talk While Walking the Walk in the College of Business. [REVIEW] Journal of Academic Ethics 2 (1):89-100.
Bennett W. Helm (2008). Plural Agents. Noûs 42 (1):17–49.
Boudewijn de Bruin (2009). We and the Plural Subject. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 39 (2):235-259.
K. Brad Wray (2001). Collective Belief and Acceptance. Synthese 129 (3):319-33.
Margaret P. Gilbert (1994). Sociality as a Philosophically Significant Category. Journal of Social Philosophy 25 (3):5-25.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads158 ( #2,984 of 722,698 )
Recent downloads (6 months)8 ( #12,370 of 722,698 )
How can I increase my downloads?