Arto Laitinen

Professor Panu Raatikainen’s academic work in philosophy ranges from the philosophy of mind and language to truth and science, logic and mathematics. His signature contribution in any area is bringing argumentative transparency to foggy and complex debates. This edited volume brings together leading philosophers who have encountered Panu Raatikainen in various academic occasions, as well as past and present colleagues. It celebrates Raatikainen’s 60th birthday with a mosaic of papers discussing various topics handpicked from his long and prosperous career. The articles engage in critical, constructive dialogue with Raatikainen’s key ideas and arguments focusing on three central topics in analytic philosophy: the nature of reality in which we live, the nature of truth of claims or thoughts about reality, and the nature of language expressing these thoughts and referring to reality. The volume also contains novel philosophical reflection on the nature of philosophy itself.

This paper examines whether groups can and should be self-interpreting agents. It seems that at least groups based on shared interests, ‘interest groups’, and groups providing a collective identity, ‘identity groups’, would prima facie benefit from becoming self-interpreting. This is a claim which is reflected both in political philosophy and analyses of group agency. In this paper we evaluate this claim, first, by providing a taxonomy of groups regarding their capabilities for self-interpretation. Second, we outline six reasons why non-self-interpreting groups should become self-interpreting. Third, we argue that only properly organized groups, and not looser self-interpretive groupings, can reliably avoid attribution and legitimacy issues regarding their self-interpretations. Fourth, we assess the desirability of forming self-interpretive groups by identifying theoretical, economic, social, and political costs that are typically involved in becoming a self-interpreting group agent, and argue that in some cases the costs are high enough to outweigh the reasons for becoming a genuinely self-interpreting group. Thus, despite the prima facie case, it is not always clear whether identity-groups and interest-groups should become self-interpreting. The answer in different cases hangs on the balance of costs and benefits. We finish with a brief discussion of two objections, and a short reflection.

This commentary on Åsa Burman’s Nonideal Social Ontology: The Power View makes a number of critical points about how power and powers are characterized in the book. For example, the idea of negative powers seems metaphysically suspect, leads to grammatical oddities, and could easily be dropped. Burman’s views on the ideal theoretical standard model of social ontology are examined, suggesting a stark difference between what makes a theory “ideal” and “standard.” The claim is put forward that theorists of “nonideal” persuasion may well share most features of the “standard” approach, and this is illustrated with Ásta’s Conferralism.

This text sets out four general considerations in response to Zahavi. Section One suggests that debates in analytical philosophy on collective intentionality have a broader focus than Zahavi suggests and have engaged in two kinds of task: first illuminating the nature of collective sociality in general; and second analysing a range of specific phenomena, from acceptance through to we-reasoning (from A to Z, so to speak). Against this background, I ask how Zahavi situates his own position in relation to these two tasks. Section Two considers whether Carol Rovane’s distinction between ‘rational’ and ‘phenomenological’ first person viewpoints might strengthen Zahavi’s position. While a rational viewpoint can be separate from that of individual group members, Section Three agrees with Zahavi that there are important ‘we’-phenomena like empathy and emotional sharing that do not presuppose such a separate viewpoint. Section Four suggests that Hegelian theories of recognition make a specific contribution to the intersubjective constitution of self-consciousness which are not as easily criticized as the Meadian versions discussed by Zahavi.

This essay examines Raimo Tuomela’s Social Ontology studying the developed theory of we-mode collective intentionality and the ontological background picture it is embedded in. The first section characterizes the collective intentionality – approach to social ontology, distinguishing three forms of it (irrealism, perspectivalism, realism), and contrasting it with other realist views. Section 6.2 argues there is a tension between Tuomela’s view on the fictitiousness of group agency, and the reality of rights and responsibilities had by groups. Section 6.3 studies Tuomela’s we-mode/I-mode approach. It argues that that acting in the we-mode and in the I-mode are always relative to a group, so that people who belong to several groups typically act both in the we-mode relative to one group and in the I-mode relative to another group, simultaneously. In such contexts, people are best seen acting in an “overall mode” rather than I-mode or we-mode simpliciter.

Laitinen’s paper shows good understanding of many aspects of my theory. However, there are some points that he seems to have misunderstood concerning my we-mode/I-mode distinction. He makes some innovative remarks on how to expand the theory to encompass broad social contexts where several groups are taken into account at the same time (cf. his new notion of “overall mode”). His critical remarks are, however, based on a view that is not mine. Below I will comment on the most central parts and arguments of this paper, but because of its length I cannot discuss all the details of his developments.

This article examines the senses in which solidarity is a matter of acting “for our sake” and what its relationship to human flourishing is, in the three contexts of human solidarity, political solidarity and societal solidarity. It distinguishes between bottom-up and top-down relations between our good and my good and links these to different aspects of well-being. In the moral context of human solidarity and “the party of the humankind”, the idea of “all for one and one for all” illuminates some aspects of morality that do not come to fore in standard individualistic moral theories, which do not need the notion of solidarity in answering the questions they pose. Political solidarity is in two ways related to moral relationships: all forms face the question of whether they are morally justifiable, but some are further motivated by prevailing injustice and wrongness. In the context of social solidarity, there are two positions that should be prevented from arising: the contributory excluded and the extremely wealthy. In addition to questions of justice and morality, what is at stake are considerations of social solidarity, and via that, the relational aspect of flourishing of the individuals.

n this article I address the idea that recognition is fundamentally ambivalent: not only can there be bad forms of recognition – misrecognition, nonrecognition, disrespect – but that even the good or adequate forms of recognition may in some ways be detrimental to the recipient or sustain societal domination (Ikäheimo, Lepold, Stahl 2021). One version of the challenge is that social movements do better by focusing on other concepts than recognition, for their progressive aims. I will discuss the non-consequentialist nature of adequacy of recognition, value pluralism, the rewards of submissiveness, dialectical progression to adequate recognition, and “ambivalence of being” as providing partial explanations for the ambivalence of recognition, while arguing that adequate recognition is only contingently ambivalent. By discussing these challenges, I continue to articulate a conception of mutual recognition and misrecognition that I have developed earlier (Laitinen 2002, 2003, 2010, 2012, Ikäheimo & Laitinen 2007).

This article identifies and tries to solve five puzzles in Tuomela’s Collective Acceptance View of sociality and institutions. If it is framed in terms of collective acceptance of sentences as true for a group, and that need not mean objective truth, does collective acceptance shed any light on the ontology of institutions? Is it the CA-events or CA-states that have the possible ontological consequences for social reality? If theoretical claims about CA conflict, which ones should we revise? How to make sense of CA-states sometimes being intentions and sometimes beliefs? In cases where the related attitudes are there, but for some reason or another the corresponding activity does not take place, should we say that collective acceptance is whatever is needed (not merely attitudes, but also related actions) for the related ontological effect to take place? The article discusses these challenges and argues among other things that Tuomela’s account has the desired ontological relevance, but as Tuomela sees collective acceptance as an achievement-notion, only effective collective acceptance is collective acceptance at all.

The aim of this book is to provide an in-depth account of Hegel’s writings on human action as they relate to contemporary concerns in the hope that it will encourage fruitful dialogue between Hegel scholars and those working in the philosophy of action. During the past two decades, preliminary steps towards such a dialogue were taken, but many paths remain uncharted. The book thus serves as both a summative document of past interaction and a promissory note of things to come. We begin this introduction with some general words regarding the philosophy of action before singling out reasons for exploring Hegel’s thought in relation to it. We next present a brief overview of studies conducted to this day, followed by a thematic appraisal of the contributions appearing in this volume.

This paper argues that relations of mutual recognition (love, respect, esteem, trust) contribute directly and non-reductively to our flourishing as relational selves. Love is important for the quality of human life. Not only do everyday experiences and analyses of pop culture and world literature attest to this; scientific research does as well. How exactly does love contribute to well-being? This chapter discusses the suggestion that it not only matters for the experiential quality of life, or for successful agency, but that it actualizes our nature as “relational selves” (Chen, Boucher & Kraus 2011). I defend a hybrid or pluralist theory, which sees humans not only as subjects of experiences, or agents, or valuers, but also as relational selves. Expanding from love to other interpersonal relations, thriving relations of mutual recognition (love, respect, esteem, trust), contribute directly and non-reductively to our flourishing as relational selves. The paper will start by putting forward the proposal (Section 2), and then discussing it in relation to important alternatives. The focus is on alternatives which hold that love, and other forms of mutual recognition, are important for well-being, but only indirectly. One kind of challenge against the constitutive role of relations to others for well-being comes from the traditional theories that accommodate relations in some indirect ways (Section 3). A second kind of challenge admits that perhaps love is central to well-being in a direct way, but do we have reason to believe that other forms of mutual recognition are as well? (Section 4) Yet another kind of challenge is that love matters for the quality of lives in some other way than contributing to its prudential value: love is good, but is it good for us? (Section 5) A fourth kind of challenge concerns what we are, and the nature of “essentialism” involved in the approach stressing relational selfhood: cannot, say, motherhood contribute to one’s good life even if motherhood is contingent and not essential? (Section 6). In debates on recognition the idea that mutual recognition is also relevant for well-being has been put forward, for example in Axel Honneth’s (1992, ch.9 ) ”formal” theory of good life. Whatever else constitutes good life, relations of recognition form its backbone (cf. Ikäheimo 2014). Surprisingly little however is written about mutual recognition and well-being in detail, or recognition in comparison to traditional theories of well-being. This chapter aims to fill some of that void, and at the same time defend the view that well-being is one of the normative notions with which mutual recognition has a constitutive relationship.

Agents have powers to bring about change. Do agents have normative powers to bring about normative change directly? This chapter distinguishes between direct normative change and descriptive and institutional changes, which may indirectly be normatively significant. This article argues that agents do indeed have the powers to bring about normative change directly. It responds to a challenge claiming that all normativity is institutional and another claiming that exercises of normative powers would violate considerations of supervenience. The article also responds to a challenge - generalizing Kent Hurtig’s recent challenge about consent - which states that exercises of normative powers are valid only in cases that do not matter - they never bring about a “normative transformation” of what the agent overall ought to do. It turns out that consent is normatively transformative in some cases, but the main contribution of exercises of normative powers is at the contributory level not that of overall oughts. Invalid exercises of normative powers are void of any normative effects. Rational agents as possessors of normative powers are not merely responsive to pre-existing normative reasons, but they can also create normative reasons. A “responsive” view of rational agency sees us as being able to track existing normative reasons and make descriptive changes (on which normative changes supervene). The “creative” view of rational agency sees us as being able not only to construct institutions but also to create normative reasons directly. The chapter concludes that agents are both responsive and creative.

ABSTRACT This article argues that Dewey has a “progressive historicist” theory of ethics and social philosophy. That theory is here explicated with the notion of an “evaluative framework,” which can be embodied both implicitly in practice and in explicit theories and judgments. Such historicism, in which each stage has overcome the deficiencies of the previous stage, has ample resources to avoid unconstrained relativism, in terms of three aspects: the “dynamic,” the “dialogic,” and the “historical.” The article poses, however, a challenge for such “progressive historicisms”: while there are determinate oughts within each stage of history before the inadequacies of that stage have come to the fore, it is indeterminate what one ought to do during the intermediate phases once such inadequacies have come to one's knowledge and before a new solution has been generally socially accepted and habitualized. The last subsection briefly outlines various responses historicism might give.

This study concerns the sociotechnical bases of human autonomy. Drawing on recent literature on AI ethics, philosophical literature on dimensions of autonomy, and on independent philosophical scrutiny, we first propose a multi-dimensional model of human autonomy and then discuss how AI systems can support or hinder human autonomy. What emerges is a philosophically motivated picture of autonomy and of the normative requirements personal autonomy poses in the context of algorithmic systems. Ranging from consent to data collection and processing, to computational tasks and interface design, to institutional and societal considerations, various aspects related to sociotechnical systems must be accounted for in order to get the full picture of potential effects of AI systems on human autonomy. It is clear how human agents can, for example, via coercion or manipulation, hinder each other’s autonomy, or how they can respect each other’s autonomy. AI systems can promote or hinder human autonomy, but can they literally respect or disrespect a person’s autonomy? We argue for a philosophical view according to which AI systems—while not moral agents or bearers of duties, and unable to literally respect or disrespect—are governed by so-called “ought-to-be norms.” This explains the normativity at stake with AI systems. The responsible people (designers, users, etc.) have duties and ought-to-do norms, which correspond to these ought-to-be norms.

This chapter distinguishes between several senses of “normativity”. For example, that we ought to abstain from causing unnecessary suffering is a normative, not descriptive, claim. And so is the claim that we have good reason, and ought to drive on the right, or left, side of the road because the law requires us to do that. Reasons and oughts are normative, by definition. Indeed, it may be that “[t]he normativity of all that is normative consists in the way it is, or provides, or is otherwise related to reasons” (Raz 1999, 67) . That is what the “reasons-first” view holds, but there are also other views, and what is by definition a normative statement, or a normative fact if you like, depends on how we define normativity. It may seem that requirements are also by definition normative. But it seems that there can also be requirements that one has no reason to meet: it is less clear whether such requirements are normative in the same sense that reasons and oughts are normative. This paper will go through various further phenomena, which are candidates for being normative in some other sense than normative reasons and oughts, defending however the view that not all of them are. But arguably four or so different senses of normativity can be distinguished. The paper will accept the view that the normativity of reasons and oughts, which is here called normativity1, is central. It is an open question whether all requirements or expectations or socially constructed norms are normative in that sense. Arguably it depends on the contents and content-independent authority of the legislators, whether we have good reasons, or ought, to meet the requirements, obey the law, or to follow the etiquette, or to conform to others’ interpersonal expectations, requests, demands or prescriptions. Whether and when we do have such reasons is a difficult and important substantive question, which concerns the normativity1 of requirements of law. In another sense, norms (intended to guide behavior) are trivially or by definition normative, and constitute normativity: some forms of behavior are ruled as acceptable (e.g. driving on the right) and others as unacceptable (e.g. driving on the left) in light of the norm. Even in the case of a bad norm (that we have no reason to follow, and which ought to be changed, and ought not prevail) classifies behaviours as acceptable or unacceptable in light of the norm. Surely norms are by definition normative? Call this conformity to social norms and actual expectations normativity2. It is not an open question whether social norms are normative in that sense – they are by definition normative2. But importantly, it is an open question whether one has good reasons, or sufficient reason, or ought, to follow any social norm – that is, whether the norm in question is normative1. The first section of the article characterizes further the difference between these two senses of normativity, and additionally introduces various other candidate senses of “normativity”. These possible senses of “normativity” may be at stake in the debates about normative requirements of rationality , about so called ought-to-be -rules , about normativity of linguistic meaning , about “directions of fit” of beliefs and desires , about subjective authority of intentions and decisions and interpersonal authority or co-authority of concrete others. In later sections these cases are discussed. Do they constitute separate senses of normativity? And are the later phenomena such that they give agents good reasons: do they include normativity1 – the core sense? A “normative power -model” is suggested as a framework for examining whether actual social norms, laws, expectations provide good reasons and oughts or not. Once we understand the relation between the first two senses of normativity, do the later phenomena follow the same pattern – is the “normative powers – model” relevant for them as well?