[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What makes you think this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Common sense? Seriously, I don't understand how this isn't obvious--anytime something like a collective is "acting" (eg, a mob), it can only act insofar as the individual members that compose the collective act.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a irrelevant point. Anytime an individual is "acting", it can only act insofar as the component organs that compose the individual act, yet you seem to have no problem treating the individual as a whole. Collectives are no different than individuals, just another level of abstraction up. The insistence of looking at the situation at one arbitrary level of abstraction (that of the human being) is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]
The organs of a human body cannot act outside of a body. I can't disconnect my lungs and larnx and have them talk to people.

[/ QUOTE ]

So? Your point is that somehow the fact that BOTH a person and a collective can act is somehow impossible because BOTH a person and some lungs cannot act? That doesn't seem very robust.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lungs + larynx do not constitute a moral agent.

[/ QUOTE ]

That isn't the point. You seem to think that the fact that lungs+larynx aren't a moral agent somehow means you can generalize that only human beings can act. Thats silly. Just because nothing SIMPLER than a human can be a moral agent doesn't mean nothing more complex can be.

Your argument is support for the idea that humans can't be governments or collectives, not that collectives cant do the same things as people.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am in the middle of a croud of 10,000 people. Many, most, almost all, are shouting and demanding things. This croud of 10,000 (me + 9,999 people) is the whole of a country. Many of them have signs for 'x'. Many are shouting "we want x". I happen to be in the middle of the croud, sitting on a lawn chair, reading a book. I happen to not be paying attention to the people around me shouting and waving signs, I am engrossed in my book.

Am I part of the 'croud'?
Is the 'croud' representing me?

What about if there are 2,000 gathered and 1,500 are for x ((actually some are for x-1, some x-2, etc) and the other 500 are for y (actually y-1, etc). The other 8,000 are off somewhere else reading books. Are they part of the croud, or collective? If yes, please explain how as I am a little stupid and don't get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not on the 'collectives can act' side of this argument. I'm on the 'bringing up lungs+larynx to support your argument that collectives cannot act is fallacious' side.