ABSTRACT
My goal is to combat the idea that there is something metaphysically or morally problematic in the idea that institutional entities, such as corporations, are capable of intentional action, and that they can have moral obligations and bear moral responsibility, strictly speaking. I argue that, at least on one conception of the point of morality, and on the normative theory it supports, we can explain how institutional entities can have moral obligations. Similar arguments can be offered from other theoretical perspectives. Institutional entities can be involved in events in the way that the U.S. was involved in the bombing of Hiroshima. I will argue that such “institutional actional events” qualify as actions. The upshot, I contend, is that facts about the obligations or responsibility of collective entities plausibly are grounded in the same kinds of facts about the content of morality as ground the obligations or responsibility of relevant individuals.
