Abstract

Views that say corporations can be agents in their own right, metaphysically distinct from their individual members, are increasingly popular. Given the moral significance usually attributed to agency, this raises the question of whether corporate agents have moral rights comparable with those of individual agents. In this article, I argue that, even if we accept corporations can be agents, we must conclude that their moral rights are more limited than, because they are derivative of, the rights of their individual members. In so doing, I offer a version of normative individualism even those who reject methodological individualism should accept. I then apply my findings to criticize the US Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.