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)

Gilbert: joint commitments entail contralateral commitments.

I’ve been suggesting that

A joint commitment is a commitment we have collectively.

so

A joint commitment is 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.