Group Belief: Lessons from Lies and Bullshit

I—Jennifer Lackey
{"title":"Group Belief: Lessons from Lies and Bullshit","authors":"I—Jennifer Lackey","doi":"10.1093/arisup/akaa007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Groups and other sorts of collective entities are frequently said to believe things. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for instance, was asked by reporters at White House press conferences whether the Trump administration ‘believes in climate change’ or ‘believes that slavery is wrong’. Similarly, it is said on the website of the Aclu of Illinois that the organization ‘firmly believes that rights should not be limited based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity’. A widespread philosophical view is that belief on the part of a group’s members is neither necessary nor sufficient for group belief. In other words, groups are said to be able to believe that p even when not a single individual member of the group believes that p. In this paper, I challenge this view by focusing on two phenomena that have been entirely ignored in the literature: group lies and group bullshit. I show that when group belief is understood in terms of actions over which group members have voluntarily control, as is standardly thought, paradigmatic instances of a group lying or bullshitting end up counting as a group believing. Thus we need to look elsewhere for an adequate account of group belief.","PeriodicalId":100121,"journal":{"name":"Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume","volume":"76 1","pages":"185-208"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arisup/akaa007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Groups and other sorts of collective entities are frequently said to believe things. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, for instance, was asked by reporters at White House press conferences whether the Trump administration ‘believes in climate change’ or ‘believes that slavery is wrong’. Similarly, it is said on the website of the Aclu of Illinois that the organization ‘firmly believes that rights should not be limited based on a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity’. A widespread philosophical view is that belief on the part of a group’s members is neither necessary nor sufficient for group belief. In other words, groups are said to be able to believe that p even when not a single individual member of the group believes that p. In this paper, I challenge this view by focusing on two phenomena that have been entirely ignored in the literature: group lies and group bullshit. I show that when group belief is understood in terms of actions over which group members have voluntarily control, as is standardly thought, paradigmatic instances of a group lying or bullshitting end up counting as a group believing. Thus we need to look elsewhere for an adequate account of group belief.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
群体信仰:谎言和胡扯的教训
团体和其他类型的集体实体经常被认为相信事物。例如,萨拉·赫卡比·桑德斯(Sarah Huckabee Sanders)在白宫新闻发布会上被记者问到,特朗普政府是“相信气候变化”还是“相信奴隶制是错误的”。同样,伊利诺斯州美国公民自由联盟的网站上说,该组织“坚定地认为,权利不应该基于一个人的性取向或性别认同而受到限制”。一个广为流传的哲学观点是,群体成员的信仰既不是必要的,也不是充分的。换句话说,群体被认为能够相信p,即使群体中没有一个成员相信p。在本文中,我通过关注两个在文献中被完全忽视的现象来挑战这一观点:群体谎言和群体扯谎。我表明,当群体信仰被理解为群体成员自愿控制的行为时,就像标准思想一样,群体撒谎或胡扯的典型例子最终被视为群体信仰。因此,我们需要在其他地方寻找对群体信仰的充分解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pluralist Republicanism: Race, Gender and Domination Horkheimer, Habermas, Foucault as Political Epistemologists Metaethics and the Nature of Properties Liberation Philosophy Logical Consequence (Slight Return)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1