Alone Together: Why "Incentivization" Fails as an Account of Institutional Facts
Abbreviated Journal Title
Philos. Soc. Sci.
collective intentions; institutions; construction; social reality; Searle; REALITY; Ethics; Philosophy
In two articles, Smits, Buekens, and du Plessis have argued that John Searle's account of institutional facts suffers serious flaws and should be replaced with a reductive account they call incentivization. We argue against their view in two ways. First, the specific flaws they find in Searle are based on misunderstandings. Second, incentivization, as they present it, fails as a reduction of strict collective actions and, thus, cannot account for institutional facts such as money or property.
Philosophy of the Social Sciences
"Alone Together: Why "Incentivization" Fails as an Account of Institutional Facts" (2015). Faculty Bibliography 2010s. 6444.