Idle musing

[bunny]

This should perhaps go in the politics forum, but they scare me. You guys just call me an irrational mystic - there I'm a jackbooted, coercive thug. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

A question arose after pondering the oft-heard AC comment that a collective cant act - individuals act. I expect it's important to moral justifications for AC, though I havent really looked into it...

Anyhow it prompted me to consider a silly thought experiment:

Suppose there is an innocent victim, trapped on a rocky outcropping, tenuously holding onto the cliff and about to fall to their death. Two people see this situation, though are unaware of each other. They both rush to help the victim, unfortunately the combined weight causes the cliff to give way and they all plunge to their deaths - something which wouldnt have happened if only one person had gone to the victim's aid. Isnt it right to say that a collection of individuals has acted in this case? Neither of them could do it on their own and neither knew of the other's existence (assume there was no reason to think going out there alone would cause any disaster).

Basically, I dont see any problem with claiming a corporation acted, or a government, or a group of people in general. I am curious whether the "only individuals act" position is held due to desirable moral consequences or whether an alternative explanation to the above scenario is available other than a group of individuals acting. (I of course offer the usual thought experiment caveats about unreal situations, acknowledged oversimplifications, etc etc)