Review of Philosophy and Psychology

, Volume 2, Issue 2, pp 213–244 | Cite as

Playing One’s Part

Joint Action: What is Shared?


The consensus in the philosophical literature on joint action is that, sometimes at least, when agents intentionally jointly φ, this is explicable by their intending that they φ, for a period of time prior to their φ-ing. If this be granted, it poses a dilemma. For agents who so intend either severally or jointly intend that they φ. The first option is ruled out by two stipulations that we may consistently make: (i) that at least one of the agents non-akratically believes that, all things considered, the agents ought not to φ, and (ii) that an agent is akratic, if she intends a thing that she believes, all things considered, ought not to be done. But the second option seems to entail the existence of a mental state with multiple subjects, which, in turn, seems to commit us to the existence of a “group mind” modified by that state: an incautious posit to say the least. I resolve the dilemma by noting that ‘They jointly intend’ is indeterminate between ‘They intend, jointly’, which does indeed entail that some mental state is an intention with multiple subjects, and ‘Jointly, they intend’, which entails a weaker claim, viz. that some mental state or states is an intention with multiple subjects. I then sketch an account of how a plurality of mental states, distributed among subjects, might, collectively, do service as their intention that they φ. It makes novel use of notions of participation and of doing a thing jointly with others. A corollary is that either intentions are not attitudes towards propositions, or propositions are individuated more finely than is often assumed.


  1. Alonso, F.M. 2009. Shared intention, reliance, and interpersonal obligations. Ethics 119: 444–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armstrong, D.M. 1978. Universals and scientific realism. Cambridge: CUP. two volumes.Google Scholar
  3. Bakeman, R., and L. Adamson. 1984. Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother -infant and peer-infant interactions. Child Development 55: 1278–1289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boolos, G. 1984. To be is to be a value of a variable (or to be Some Values of Some Variables). Journal of Philosophy 81: 430–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boolos, G. 1985. Nominalist platonism. Philosophical Review 94: 327–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bratman, M.E. 1999a. Intention, plans, and practical reason. Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  7. Bratman, M.E. 1999b. Faces of intention: selected essays on intention and agency. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bratman, M.E. 2007. Structures of agency. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  9. Bratman, M.E. 2009a. Shared agency. In Philosophy of the social sciences: philosophical theory and scientific practice, ed. C. Mantzavinos. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  10. Bratman, M.E. 2009b. Modest sociality and the distinctiveness of intention. Philosophical Studies 144: 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Broome, J. 2001. Are intentions reasons? And how should we cope with incommensurable values? In Practical rationality and preference: essays for David Gauthier, ed. C. Morris and A. Ripstein. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  12. Davidson, D. 1990. Essays on actions and events. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  13. Elian, N., et al. (eds.). 2005. Joint attention: communication and other minds; issues in philosophy and psychology. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  14. Fine, K. 2000. Neutral relations. Philosophical Review 109: 1–33.Google Scholar
  15. Frankfurt, H.G. 1988. The importance of what we care about: philosophical essays. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  16. Frankfurt, H.G. 1999. Necessity, volition, and love. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
  17. Frankfurt, H.G. 2004. The reasons of love. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Frege, G. 1979. Posthumous Writings. H. Hermes, F. Kambartel, F. Kaulbach, ed. Trans. P. Long, R. White. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  19. Gilbert, M. 1996. Living together: rationality, sociality and obligation. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  20. Gilbert, M. 2003. The structure of the social atom: joint commitment as the foundation of human social behavior. In Socializing metaphysics: the nature of social reality, ed. F.F. Schmitt. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  21. Gilbert, M. 2006a. Rationality in collective action. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36: 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gilbert, M. 2006b. A theory of political obligation: membership, commitment, and the bonds of society. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gilbert, M. 2007. Searle and collective intentions. In Intentional acts and institutional facts: essays on John Searle's social ontology, ed. S.L. Tsohatzidis. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Hayek, F.A. 1973. Selection from ‘scientism and the study of society’. In Modes of individualism and collectivism, ed. J. O’Neill. London: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  25. Hossack, K. 2000. Plurals and complexes. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 51: 411–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Humberstone, I.L. 1991. Two kinds of agent-relativity. Philosophical Quarterly 41: 144–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson, F. 1987. Group Morality. In Metaphysics and morality: essays in honour of J. J. C. Smart, ed. P. Pettit, R. Sylvan, and J. Norman. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  28. Korsgaard, C.M. 2009. Self-constitution: agency, identity, and integrity. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  29. Kutz, C. 2000. Acting together. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 61: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lasersohn, P. 1998. Events in the semantics of collectivizing adverbials. In Events and grammar, ed. S. Rothstein. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  31. Lewis, D.K. 1979. Counterfactual dependence and time's arrow. Noûs 13: 455–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lewis, D.K. 1991. Parts of classes. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  33. Ludwig, K. 2007. Collective intentional behavior from the standpoint of semantics. Noûs 41: 355–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McKay, T. 2006. Plural predication. Oxford: OUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Moltmann, F. 2004. The semantics of together. Natural Language Semantics 12: 289–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Moore, C., and P.J. Dunham (eds.). 1995. Joint attention: its origins and role in development. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  37. O’Neill, J. 1994. ‘The same thing therefore ought to be and ought not to be’: Anselm on conflicting oughts. Heythrop Journal 35: 312–314.Google Scholar
  38. Oliver, A., and T.J. Smiley. 2004. Multigrade predicates. Mind 113: 609–681.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Peacocke, C. 1979. Deviant causal chains. Midwest Studies In Philosophy 4: 123–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pettit, P., and D. Schweikard. 2006. Joint actions and group agents. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 36: 18–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roth, A.S. 2004. Shared agency and contralateral commitments. Philosophical Review 113: 359–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Searle, J.R. 1990. Collective intentions and actions. In Intentions in communication, ed. P.R. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M.E. Pollock. Cambridge: MIT.Google Scholar
  43. Searle, J.R. 2002. Consciousness and language. Cambridge: CUP.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Smith, A. 1981. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, Vol. I. Eds. R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner, vol. II of the Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Accessed from on 2010-08-30.
  45. Smith, T.H. 2006. Out of the closet—Frege’s boots. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 106: 399–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tuomela, R. 1995. The importance of us: a philosophical study of basic social notions. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Tuomela, R. 2007. The philosophy of sociality: the shared point of view. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
  48. Tuomela, R., and K. Miller. 1988. We-Intentions. Philosophical Studies 53: 115–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. van Inwagen, P. 1990. Material beings. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Velleman, J.D. 1997. How to share an intention. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 57: 29–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy, Arthur Lewis BuildingUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations