[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
How about luckyme's homophobic boy scouts example?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, must have missed it in the sea of responses here.

[ QUOTE ]
If the organisation has a whole bunch of homophobic rules, yet all it's members are not homophobic - if somebody felt aggrieved at being excluded who should they blame? This seems to me a good reason to blame the organisation as it stops people doing bad things by hiding in a group.

[/ QUOTE ]
"People doing". That's individual action. Someone must be enforcing these rules if a potential boy scout/scout leader is feeling aggreived. The person enforcing those rules is the actor. If no one enforced these rules, nobody would be aggreived. This might lead off on a tangent because my views on the right of association might be a bit different than some here.

But like I said before, I think that by blaming an organization instead of the individuals, you are actually doing the opposite of what you claim; namely not allowing people to hide within the group. Keeping with the Catholic Church example, I think that by blaming the Church for the scandals involving child abuse reduces the blame we should be putting on the person who abused the children and those who covered it up. It at least partially absolves people of responsibility for their actions because they can hide behind the group and simply blame "it" for their problems.

[ QUOTE ]
Another reason would be that we allow organisations to own assets and to enter into legally binding contracts (which are not binding on their individual members). If we are not going to grant them the ability to act, how do they buy the assets? Or how do they reach agreements with other entities?

[/ QUOTE ]
I see no reason why this can't be done with agreements with whoever accepts responsibility to act on the rest of the company's behalf on certain matters. Maybe it's the president or CEO or whatever. The company chooses their representative and he/she can perform those actions. And if in casual conversation we were to simply say "Pepsi is buying Dr. Pepper", that can be forgiven as simply a figure of speech meant to simply life so we don't have to know exactly who is repsonsible for exactly what decisions. If we start getting into nitty gritty details, I don't think it's that unreasonable that we actually look at the individuals who are actually capable of action. This is especially true if we're going to start doing things like judging the morality of a certain action.