Moral Responsibility of Public Officials: The Problem of Many Hands

1980 ◽  
Vol 74 (4) ◽  
pp. 905-916 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis F. Thompson

That many different officials contribute in many different ways to decisions and policies in the modern state makes it difficult to ascribe moral responsibility to any official. The usual responses to this problem—based on concepts of hierarchical and collective responsibility—distort the notion of responsibility. The idea of personal responsibility—based on causal and volitional criteria—constitutes a better approach to the problem of ascribing responsibility to public officials. Corresponding to each of these criteria are types of excuses that officials use in defending the decisions they make. An analysis of the conditions under which the excuses eliminate or mitigate responsibility provides a foundation for accountability in a democracy.

Philosophy ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 96 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-131
Author(s):  
Niels de Haan

AbstractThere is good reason to think that moral responsibility as accountability is tied to the violation of moral demands. This lends intuitive support to Type-Symmetry in the collective realm: A type of responsibility entails the violation or unfulfillment of the same type of all-things-considered duty. For example, collective responsibility necessarily entails the violation of a collective duty. But Type-Symmetry is false. In this paper I argue that a non-agential group can be collectively responsible without thereby violating a collective duty. To show this I distinguish between four types of responsibility and duty in collective contexts: corporate, distributed, collective, shared. I set out two cases: one involves a non-reductive collective action that constitutes irreducible wrongdoing, the other involves a non-divisible consequence. I show that the violation of individual or shared duties both can lead to irreducible wrongdoing for which only the group is responsible. Finally, I explain why this conclusion does not upset any work on individual responsibility.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erin M. Kerrison ◽  
Jennifer Cobbina ◽  
Kimberly Bender

The politics of “Black Respectability” foreground Black citizens’ individual and collective responsibility to prioritize self-policing, polish, and propriety. Proponents believe that the steady performance of restraint and decorum is critical and that any departure from that repertoire can result in punishment. The belief that racially minoritized youth must earn respect and autonomy, rather than see those rights protected as a standard afforded to all community members, may not be widely held by younger Black people. The following study makes use of interview data collected from 23 Black Baltimore City millennials who shared their perspectives on the social and political contexts that led to Freddie Gray’s death while in Baltimore Police custody. When discussing police officers’ pursuit of citizens who match Freddie Gray’s outward appearance, younger respondents resisted the demands of Black Respectability Politics and, instead, asserted their right to pass through their neighborhoods absent state-sanctioned harassment. This study features an exploration of how generational membership moderates legal socialization, attitudes about personal responsibility for police profiling, and beliefs about the right to the same full spectrum of freedoms and protections enjoyed by majority citizens. Implications for critical race theory, legal cynicism, and intergenerational coalition building are also discussed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 115 (3/4) ◽  
pp. 392-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soula Ioannou ◽  
Christiana Kouta ◽  
Angeliki Andreou

Purpose – Health promotion can fall into a victim blaming approach and put social pressure on particular students who could be marginalized due to their personal, economical, cultural, social or ethnic characteristics, for example, students who are obese, drug users or HIV carriers. The purpose of this paper is to present and discuss ways in which the design of the newly reformed Cyprus Health Education Curriculum (CHEC) attempted to protect learners from victim blaming. Design/methodology/approach – The paper describes and reflects on the learning objectives, teaching methods and teaching activities of the CHEC. Findings – The paper gives specific examples of how the design of the CHEC attempts to ensure that the curriculum does not promote victim blaming. It describes learning objectives, content, suggested teaching methods and activities from three thematic areas of the curriculum which are particularly susceptible to victim blaming: “food and health”, “emotional health” and “family planning, sexual and reproductive health”. It discusses how the design of the CHEC attempts to encourage educators to address the underlying social and environmental determinants of health and thus avoid stigmatization. Practical implications – The paper can be useful for curriculum designers and school educators. It describes how the design of a health education curriculum and health education lessons can refrain from burdening the individual with total personal responsibility for health behaviour and lifestyle. Social implications – Understanding and implementing the basic learning themes and objectives of the CHEC has social and community implications. It promotes collective responsibility, emphasizing a non-blaming and community approach. The design of the CHEC challenges the idea of free choice, acknowledges the social determinants of health and promotes students’ empowerment as active members of society. Originality/value – The originality of this paper lies in the description and reflection of the design of the first health education curriculum in Cyprus, which attempts to secure learners from victim blaming in its implementation. The aspects of the design of the CHEC described in this paper may be applicable to other European countries.


2018 ◽  
Vol 41 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias A. Mattei

AbstractIn this commentary, I highlight the importance of a proper discussion of the pragmatic implications of John Doris's paradigm for allocation of personal responsibility proposed in his new book Talking to Our Selves. By employing some classic concepts of the American common law tradition, I discuss why Doris's valuational understanding of agency fails to provide an adequate framework for moral responsibility, social accountability, and legal liability.


10.1068/a3779 ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 791-804 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Petts

This paper presents an empirical study of public conceptions of responsibility and choice in relation to health protection, and the influence of these upon responses to official information. Two contrasting case studies are used, air pollution and childhood immunisation (specifically the MMR vaccination). The results confirm social networks and everyday experiences, and social normalisation of behaviour as important influences upon learning, responses to information, and the taking of personal action. People require information to support the freedom to make personal choices. However, the two cases illustrate that notions of collective responsibility are weaker, in the case of MMR overridden by personal responsibility, in the case of air pollution being transferred to other institutions. Conclusions are developed relating to information provision in an age promoting individualisation and retraction of government, specifically the need for explicit engagement with the benefits (personal and collective) of health protection measures.


Author(s):  
Maryna Braterska-Dron ◽  

The article is devoted to the actual problem of the probable future of our civilization and the moral responsibility of mankind for it. In the twentieth century, humanity was actually faced with the threat of man-made destruction of life on the planet. The tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with great severity raised the question not only about the morality of science, but also the personal responsibility of the scientist for his discoveries. In particular, in 1955, the Einstein-Russell Manifesto was signed, which initiated the widely known Pahous Movement for Peace and Disarmament. Art has responded to the nuclear threat. In 1950, R. Bradbury's story "There Will Be a Graceful Rain" was published. One of the first to address the subject of doomsday was American filmmakers: R. Weiss («The Day the Earth Stalle», 1951), S. Kramer («On the Shore», 1959), S. Kubrick («Doctor Stranzhla», 1964), S. Lumet («Security System», 1964). The idea of moral responsibility of each person for his future was raised on the Soviet screen in the films: «The Escape of Mr. McKinley» (1975, M. Schweitzer), «Sacrifice» (1986, A. Tarkovsky), «Letters of the Dead Man» (1986, K. Lopushansky), «Visitor to the Museum» (1989, K. Lopushansky). It was in the 1970s and 1980s that they became a painful awareness of the insecurity and fragility of human life. It has become clear that nuclear energy can be not only a policy or an economy, but above all a tool of self-destruction. It has been scientifically justified that the greatest threat to humanity lies not where it was not expected. Nuclear war is not only the mass destruction of people, total destruction, radiation, infectious diseases, etc. The main danger is the climate change of the planet, changes in the biosphere (the effect of nuclear winter), which humanity will not be able to survive. marked by a painful awareness of the insecurity and fragility of human life. But today, the biosphere is threatened not only by human waste, environmental pollution, but also by the gradual destruction of the natural environment, the frantic depletion of natural resources, etc. The main thing that threatens our civilization is moral irresponsibility to posterity. What has to happen for humanity to realize the danger of indifference? Personal responsibility for the future of everyone and everyone for the future of everyone is the main principle of survival. The eminent philosopher M. Berdyaev wrote: «The end of the world depends on man, and he will be one way or another, depending on the actions of man... The greatest religious and moral truth to which a man must grow is that he cannot be saved alone. My salvation also involves the salvation of others, my loved ones, the salvation of the whole world, the transformation of the world».


2021 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 695-713
Author(s):  
Josip Guc

The responsibility for the COVID-19 pandemic was first ascribed to persons associated with the Huanan Seafood Market. However, many scientists suggest that this pandemic is actually a consequence of human intrusion into nature. This opens up a whole new perspective for an examination of direct and indirect, individual and collective responsibility concerning this particular pandemic, but also zoonotic pandemics as such. In this context, one of the key issues are the consequences of factory-farming of animals, which contributes to circumstances in which zoonotic pandemics emerge. Moreover, it is part of a larger economic system, global capitalism, whose logic implies certain coercion toward its participants to keep it essentially unchanged and therefore to make sure that livestock health remains ?the weakest link in our global health chain? (FAO). However, even though the precise answer to the issue of moral responsibility for zoonotic pandemics outbreaks in general and the COVID-19 pandemic in particular cannot be given, it is possible to list certain indicators and make a framework helpful in ascribing moral responsibility to certain persons. The paper intends to do so by examining the notion of responsibility and by applying it to the issues mentioned. The results of this analysis show that it is misleading to place moral blame on people involved in actions that directly caused the animal-to-human transmission of a certain virus or on humanity as a whole.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document