Introduction ‘Starbucks has a duty to ensure its coffee growers receive a decent wage.’ ‘Médecins Sans Frontières has a duty to operate in Syria.’ ‘The US has a duty to take the lead on climate change mitigation.’ These are assertions about the duties of group agents. This article aims to answer two questions about such duties. First, are group agents’ duties identical to a collection of individual duties? Second, if a group agent fails to do its duty, does this imply that at least one member has failed to do their duty? These two questions are obviously related. It may seem natural to pair the answers to each: one might ‘yes’ to both, and thereby be an individualist about group duties; or one might answer ‘no’ or both, and thereby be a holist about group duties. This article aims to take a middle path between these poles, by answering ‘no’ to the first question—arguing instead that group agents’ duties are distinct from a collection of individual duties—while answering ‘yes’ to the second—arguing that if a group agent fails to fulfil its duty, then a member will have failed to fulfil an individual-level duty somewhere along the way. If these answers are correct, they give us good reason to pay attention to both the group-level and the individual-level in our ascriptions of duties, and of blame for failures to fulfil them.

中文翻译：

---

集团代理和集团成员的职责

介绍 '星巴克有责任确保其咖啡种植者获得体面的工资。“无国界医生有责任在叙利亚开展工作。” “美国有责任带头减缓气候变化。” 这些是关于团体代理人职责的断言。本文旨在回答有关此类职责的两个问题。首先，团体代理人的职责是否等同于个人职责的集合？其次，如果一个团体代理人没有履行职责，这是否意味着至少有一个成员没有履行职责？这两个问题显然是相关的。将每个答案的答案配对似乎很自然：一个人可能对两者都回答“是”，从而成为一个关于团队职责的个人主义者；或者一个人可能会回答“不”或两者都回答，从而成为一个关于团队职责的整体论者。本文旨在在这些极点之间走一条中间路径，通过对第一个问题回答“否”——而是争辩说团体代理人的职责不同于个人职责的集合——同时对第二个问题回答“是”——认为如果一个团体代理人未能履行其职责，那么一个成员将未能在途中的某个地方履行个人层面的职责。如果这些答案是正确的，那么它们就给了我们很好的理由去关注群体层面和个人层面的职责归属，以及未能履行职责的责任。