On Help and Interpersonal Control
Help is not much considered in the literature of analytic social philosophy. According to Tuomela (Cooperation – a philosophical study, Springer, 2000), when a helps an agent b (1) a contributes to the achievement of b’s goal, and (2) b accepts a’s contribution to the goal. We take a rather different tack. Our notion of help is unilateral and triggered by an attempt. It is unilateral because we can provide our help to someone without her accepting it. She could be unaware of our actions, or she could be unwilling to receive it. Helping is based on trying because it is agent b (supposedly) trying to do something that triggers a’s action of help. This is something supported for instance by Warneken and Tomasello’s experiments with toddlers (Warneken and Tomasello, Science 311(5765):1301–1303, 2006; Br J Psychol 100:445–471, 2009).
Help is interesting in its own right, but also because it allows us to reconsider the philosophical underpinnings of the essential notion of control in social philosophy. Help is seen here as a kind of weak interpersonal control, where an agent a’s agency guides an agent b’s agency.
When possible, we evaluate our framework on chosen scenarios taken from the literature in philosophy and psychology. The analysis is driven by a formal, logical approach. In particular, we make use of the modal logics of agency. This assists us in taking sensible philosophical choices, avoiding blatant inconsistencies. Moreover, the resulting formalism has the potential to serve as a computational engine for implementing concrete societies of cooperating autonomous agents.
KeywordsSocial ontology Help Control Agency Logic
Emanuele Bottazzi was supported by the “Postdoc 2011” funding programme of the Autonomous Province of Trento, Italy (project “STACCO”). Nicolas Troquard was supported by a Marie Curie fellowship under grant PCOFUND-GA-2008-226070 (project “LASTS”).
- Belnap, Nuel, Michael Perloff, and Ming Xu. 2001. Facing the future (agents and choices in our indeterminist world). Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Darley, John. M., and Bibb Latané. 1968. Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 8(4): 377–383.Google Scholar
- Elgesem, Dag. 1993. Action theory and modal logic. PhD thesis, Universitetet i Oslo.Google Scholar
- Elgesem, Dag. 1997. The modal logic of agency. Nordic Journal of Philosophical Logic 2(2): 1–46.Google Scholar
- Fischer, John Martin. 1994. The metaphysics of free will. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Hendricks, Vincent, and John Symons. 2014. Epistemic logic. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Spring 2014 edition. CSLI, Stanford University. http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=freewill
- Hilpinen, Risto. 2001. Stig Kanger on deontic logic. In Collected papers of Stig Kanger with essays on his life and work, vol. 2, ed. Ghita Holmström-Hintikka, Sten Lindstrom, and Rysiek Sliwinski. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Hornsby, Jennifer. 1980. Actions. London: Routledge and Keegan.Google Scholar
- Kanger, Stig. 1957/1971. New foudations for ethical theory. In Deontic logic: Introductory and systematic readings, ed. Risto Hilpinen, 36–58. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
- Kilpatrick, Shelley Dean. 2007. Helping behaviour. In Encyclopedia of social psychology, vol. 2, ed. Roy F. Baumeister and Kathleen D. Vohs, 420–424. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
- Meyer, Susan Sauve. 2006. Aristotle on the voluntary. In The Blackwell guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics, ed. Richard Kraut, 137–157. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Miller, Seumas. 2002. Social action: A teleological account. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- O’Connor, Timothy. 2014. Free will. In The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy, ed. Edward N. Zalta, Fall 2014 edition.Google Scholar
- O’Shaughnessy, Brian. 1980. The will. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Pörn, Ingmar. 1977. Action theory and social science: Some formal models, Synthese library 120. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.Google Scholar
- Royakkers, Lambèr. 2000. Combining deontic and action logics for collective agency. In Legal knowledge and information systems. Jurix 2000: The thirteenth annual conference, ed. Joost Breuker, Ronald Leenes, and Radboud Winkels, 135–146. Amsterdam/Washington, DC: IOS Press.Google Scholar
- Santos, Felipe, and José Carmo. 1996. Indirect action, influence and responsibility. In Proceedings of DEON’96, 194–215. London: Springer.Google Scholar
- Santos, Felipe, Andrew Jones, and José Carmo. 1997. Responsibility for action in organisations: A formal model. In Contemporary action theory, vol. 1, ed. G. Holmström-Hintikka and R. Tuomela, 333–348. Dordrecht/Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
- Searle, John. R. 1990. Collective intentions and actions. In Intentions in communication, ed. P. Cohen, J. Morgan, and M. E. Pollack. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Sommerhoff, Gerd. 1969. The abstract characteristics of living systems. In Systems thinking: Selected readings, ed. F.E. Emery. Harmonsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar
- Tuomela, Raimo. 2000. Cooperation – A philosophical study. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
- Warneken, Felix, and Michael Tomasello. 2009. The roots of human altruism. British Journal of Psychology 100: 445–471.Google Scholar