Establishments as Material rather than Immaterial Objects

Hindriks, Frank

doi:10.1080/00048402.2020.1821724

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Organizations are not free-floating entities that can be ontologically separated from those who enact their plans and policies. Instead, organizations are physically constituted by the individuals who occupy roles in the organizational chart (Hess 2018; Hindriks 2021; Collins n.d.). When these role-occupants perform their roles, the organization is performing an action (Collins 2018)—at least when the role-occupant construes themselves as such (Lackey 2018).…”

Section: Caring Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Care for a Profit?

Collins¹,

Ferracioli²

2022

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We vindicate the widespread intuition that there is something morally problematic with for-profit corporations providing care to young children and elders. But instead of putting forward an empirical argument showing that for-profit corporations score worse than not-for-profits when it comes to meeting the basic needs of these vulnerable groups, we develop a philosophical argument about the nature of the relationship between a care organisation, its role-occupants, and care recipients. We argue that the correlation between profit and lower-quality care is a result of intrinsic features of a for-profit model, combined with conceptual features of meaningful caring relationships, such that non-profits are the most reliable institutional providers of adequate care. Our claim is that care requires a kind of commitment that for-profit institutions are constituted to avoid, and that non-profit institutions are constituted to embrace.

show abstract

Section: Caring Organizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Care for a Profit?

Collins¹,

Ferracioli²

2022

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In that case, the result of a scratch would be viewed also as a kind of backwards causation, but where this is interpreted as being made farther from the goal at hand.5 It is an interesting question precisely where this event occurs or what objects instantiate it. We cannot address this sufficiently here, but I refer readers to a recent exchange on an adjacent discussion on the materiality of establishments(Hindriks, 2020;Korman, 2020). Given that exchange, there is a fleeting thought that if Korman is right, and establishments like universities as objects are abstract, then perhaps some events involving them are abstract as well.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Backwards Causation in Social Institutions

Silver

2022

Erkenn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Whereas many philosophers take backwards causation to be impossible, the few who maintain its possibility either take it to be absent from the actual world or else confined to theoretical physics. Here, however, I argue that backwards causation is not only actual, but common, though occurring in the context of our social institutions. After juxtaposing my cases with a few others in the literature and arguing that we should take seriously the reality of causal cases in these contexts, I consider several objections. These objections involve whether the cases should be reinterpreted, whether they are properly within the institution, whether they involve necessitation or else Cambridge changes, whether and how they involve changing the past, and whether this should call us to question institutional reality. I end by suggesting that it is a virtue of our institutions that they allow backwards causation, that this is a kind of technology that they are often built to incorporate.

show abstract

“… 34 For recent explorations of this, see the theories of groups—and establishments, and other aspects of the social world—discussed by Baker ( 2019 ), Hindriks ( 2020 ), and Korman ( 2020 ). Those theories, like mine, challenge the assumption that approaches to the metaphysics of groups must be radically different from approaches to the metaphysics of objects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pluralities, counterparts, and groups

Wilhelm

2022

Philos Stud

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I formulate a theory of groups based on pluralities and counterparts: roughly put, a group is a plurality of entities at a time. This theory comes with counterpart-theoretic semantics for modal and temporal sentences about groups. So this theory of groups is akin to the stage theory of material objects: both take the items they analyze to exist at a single time, and both use counterparts to satisfy certain conditions relating to the modal properties, temporal properties, and coincidence properties of those items.

show abstract

Establishments as Material rather than Immaterial Objects

Cited by 4 publications

References 18 publications

Care for a Profit?

Care for a Profit?

Backwards Causation in Social Institutions

Pluralities, counterparts, and groups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About