ABSTRACT
Collective reasoning is likely to be anathema to many economists because they typically espouse some form of methodological individualism. I argue that there is only an apparent conflict here, since collective reasoning is just a particular way of thinking by individuals. However, it does seem to rely on a strong notion of plural subject agency, philosophical analyses of which Hollis invokes in its defence. I show some problems raised by the details of these analyses. The second section discusses alternative rationality concepts which feature in Hollis’s work, introducing team thinking. I examine the question of methodological individualism in the third section, which also examines the notions of collective intention-in-action, belief and goal cited by Hollis. This discussion leads into a question about how reasons valid for groups can move individuals to act, and the problem of explaining the possibility of an individual’s moving between two distinct modes of action.
