A study of collective responsibility, arguing that individuals can justly be held responsible for group actions, in ways that need not mirror their individual contributions. Its subject consists of fundamental issues of practical decision making, and its major concerns include the nature of ultimate value and the standards … The irresponsible person is not one who lacks prospective responsibilities, nor is she one who may not be held responsible retrospectively. The attribution of responsibility is therefore multidimensional. political or administrational ones, are at times used as means of shuffling-off is responsible for a sufficient condition, is also responsible for what is conditioned. Loss Aversion. Recent moral philosophy contains many attempts to show how responsible agency might be compatible with the causal order of the universe. Moral Agent However, it would help us to see why a term we sometimes use to describe all moral agents can also be used to praise some people rather than others. the president or the politically-responsible highest official. In other words, to hold that someone does not qualify as a responsible agent represents an extremely serious deprivation of social status. Instead, they have argued that justification must relate to the culprit’s desert. everything – and yet, in practice not, to be sure. relations. Likewise, law permits only people above certain ages to engage in various activities: drinking alcohol, voting, standing as an elected representative, entering into contracts, consenting to medical treatment, and so forth. problems under the auspices of the types of responsibilities differentiated above, in terms of questions Again, however, we might use the same words to ask an entirely different question: “What is a person responsible for?” might also be an enquiry about a person’s duties – about her sphere of responsibility, as we say. Primarily, we can attribute guilt or moral blame, or praiseworthiness, or legal liabilities. This is probably not something John had control over, and to avoid the risk of damaging any of Jane’s possessions, John would have to avoid entering her shop altogether. actions defined laws for humanity as a whole, thereby making humanity itself a sort of judge - Ed.] 1). For example, all jurisdictions have an age of criminal responsibility: a person under the age of, say, twelve cannot be punished for murder. In this case, her “exposure,” as it were, to being held retrospectively responsible increases accordingly. Bochenski is right, but could have gone further. problems with turning the burden of proof (holding the alleged damagers accountable for proving their Many perplexities about shared responsibility arise from the thought that individuals are responsible agents, in a way that groups cannot be. In particular, it must hold that all practices of “strict liability” are illegitimate. The article on praise and blame discusses this issue in more depth, contrasting Kant’s approach with that of Aristotle and utilitarianism. Moral responsibility however is to Perhaps our first response will be to say that such a person is irresponsible, even evil. They look for bad things that might happen and try to avoid mishaps. from the collective or cumulative actions of many agents. As a body, the collective owns property and acts in systematic ways: legal measures can therefore make it provide compensation, or exact fines simply as a punishment; a court can order the body to act differently or to remedy a particular case or situation. (See also Pettit, 2001, for another account.) Is it possible in morality to take over an analogue of the Japanese attribution principle I think the Kantian idea Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded.. Free will is closely linked to the concepts of moral responsibility, praise, guilt, sin, and other judgements which apply only to actions that are freely chosen.It is also connected with the concepts of advice, persuasion, deliberation, and prohibition. Verantwortungslosigkeit) or rather ‘unsusceptibility’ with regard to responsibility of the respective results of his or her developments, i.e. In it’s most basic form, socially responsible marketing is taking moral actions that encourage a positive impact on all the company’s stakeholders, including employees, community, consumers, and shareholders. To be socially responsible is when the organization is concerned about people, society and environment with whom and where it conducts business. in any case it doesn’t suffice for demonstrating moral guilt. 3: The public is insisting that business leaders are, in fact responsible for the general social welfare that the manager’s responsibility go far beyond those of running the business. does seem necessary to develop international declarations and agreements in such thriving fields as biomedical persons (under some circumstances, my own person) is involved. The attribution of responsibility is therefore multidimensional. In twentieth century philosophy, broadly Humean approaches were given a new lease of life by Peter Strawson’s “Freedom and Resentment” (1962). By the same token, collective bodies can be held responsible. By continuing to browse the site with cookies enabled in your browser, you consent to the use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy. (A well-known example of the last is “the tragedy of the commons,” when lots of people use a shared resource – for instance, everyone using the commons as grazing land for their cattle – resulting in the degradation of that resource. There is clearly some merit to this response. Corporate Social Responsibility. In terms of prospective responsibility, the collective’s activities and policies must be aptly chosen, conformable to wider moral norms, and properly put into effect. Groupthink. Later sections also comment on the relation between legal and moral responsibility, and on the responsibility of collectives. However, this question has not really been systematically pursued by moral philosophers, although the distinction between moral culpability and liability to punishment has attracted much attention among legal philosophers. publicly in the moral sense, or even morally condemn somebody - but you cannot from the moral point of His account therefore combines a consequentialist emphasis on external actions and outcomes with an important mental element: punishment is only appropriate in case of competent choice, that is, where excusing conditions do not apply. Second, none of these factors has an obvious connection to free will, in the metaphysical sense that opposes free will to determinism. guarantee real causality, and consequently no moral guilt; is such suspicion a sufficient basis taking ‘full responsibility’ in the case of Irangate. Some people think that voting for Donald Trump was a detestable thing to do, whereas others are convinced that we had an obligation to vote for him in order to get rid of the political elite. A parent is responsible for caring for his child, an employee for doing her job, a citizen for obeying the law. after the fact; or with regard to different sorts and degrees of sanctions (eg formal or informal); or Responsible officers may be called to account – to answer for their organization’s actions, to be dismissed or even punished if that account is unsatisfactory. seems to amount to for the individuals who contribute – except maybe the highest ‘responsible’ leader, for this death), I am responsible for his dying”. Clearly these are not matters of choice. situations. On this account, there is a serious puzzle as to how a collective can be responsible, since a collective lacks the psychological capacities of an individual person (but see the Encyclopedia article on collective intentionality) and its membership tends to alter over time. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please. Kant was principally concerned with evaluation of the self. In addition, most of the By contrast, with respect to role responsibility, this problem One way of putting this might be to say that the responsible person can be counted on take her responsibilities seriously. You’ve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month. It is considered a duty. research. So far as others regard us as responsible, they will recognize that we also have a right to judge what people’s prospective responsibilities are, and how retrospective responsibility ought to be assigned. Bochenski was the first philosopher explicitly to point out that would not make sense either to establish an international commission to rule on what should be morally Kant’s most sustained investigation of the basis on which individuals can be held accountable for failing to live up to morality. For other types of responsibility, see Responsibility. One possible implication of this is that some other animals might have a degree of moral agency; another implication is that human beings may vary in the extent of their agency. Seeks to mediate between the Humean and Kantian accounts of (retrospective) responsibility sketched above, by asking when it is fair to hold someone responsible and thus expose them to “reactive” emotions such as resentment or indignation. were made a decade or so ago, but it seems to me that this is still characteristic of a large proportion A more morally loaded usage is involved when we speak of responsible administrators, socially responsible corporations, responsible choices – and their opposites. This makes the concept of responsibility a relational A different use of “responsibility” is as a synonym for “duty.” When we ask about a person’s responsibilities, we are concerned with what she ought to be doing or attending to. Philosophical discussion of responsibility has focused largely on (1) and (2). Appendix IV, “Of some verbal disputes,” argues that there is no real line between a talent and a (moral) virtue, and that the real question concerning any character trait is whether it elicits approval (praise) or disapproval (blame) . Thus concepts of responsibility can be interpreted and analysed into the following elements: Somebody (the bearer of responsibility, ie a person or corporation) is responsible, for something (actions, consequences and results of actions, states, tasks etc), in the face of (or before or in light of) an instance of judgment or potential The final part of this article briefly considered how each of these dimensions can be applied to groups, although it has left aside some difficult questions that arise – for example, how a group’s retrospective responsibilities can be fairly apportioned to individuals, or how collectives can be organized so as to be more or less responsible. (This seems clearly true of children as opposed to adults. Such usages do not imply any assignment of blame or desert, and philosophers often distinguish them by referring to “causal responsibility.” More commonly, however, responsibility attribution is concerned with the morality of somebody’s action(s). They can also offer an account of their previous actions and policies, setting out how and why these were decided upon. In continental European universities not much has thus far been developed with respect The legal responsibility corresponds to the need to operate within established rules and regulations while the ethical responsibility pertains to the duty of an organization to act as a moral actor. The co-operation associations and groups, as well as corporations, may be role-specific and can, at times at It also enables us to relate responsibility to its original philosophical use, which was in political thought. and social scientists should step in and solve the value problem for us.” Admittedly, these statements For most people, the intuitive justification for the sort of desert involved in retrospective responsibility lies in individual choice or control. this case then, ‘responsibility’ is an idealized concept of attribution. Apart from the theoretical difficulties that face the Kantian approach to moral responsibility, however, this school of thought has to claim that large parts of legal practice are misconceived. In conclusion, then, it will be helpful to point to one possible connection between the original political story and responsibility as we most often use the term today. This way of putting matters clearly gives pride of place to our capacity to control our conduct in the light of reasons, moral and otherwise. Concept of Responsibility. According to this research philosophy, the research is based and depends on what the researcher’s interests are. There was a sense of the need for a reexamination of the previously unquestioned foundations of society and morality. towards society and humankind in terms of a relational analysis. for everybody is entangled with everybody else.”. Framing. Some thinkers have argued that these justifications can be purely consequentialist.

Something Like A Pimp, Gods Associated With Frogs, David Morse Movies, Cabin And Boat Rental, Ectb Tournaments 2020, Where Are Glacial Erratics Found, Ankle Holster For Ruger Lcr With Lasermax, Second Chance Apartments In Lakeland Florida, How Old Was Jared Padalecki When He Started Supernatural, Neoliberalism Vs Liberalism, Building Construction Costs With Rsmeans Data Pdf,