1.4 Collective responsibility Flashcards
(19 cards)
Give some examples of cases that discuss collective responsability
Reuzegom and Sanda Dia
Reuzegom fraternity and initiation ritual => death of sanda Dia
Sanda Dia dies in an initiation ritual of a uni fraternity. Why? Combination of malnutrition, administration of fish oil, alcohol abuse. Died of dehydration. The case was very mediatic.
A group acted, a single act of an individual did not cause the death of Sanda, so it was impossible to point one ( two or three) people for the responsibility of the death.
But who is responsible? (group or individuals?)
Bullying: One pupil get bullied => who is (morally) responsible?
Bullies yes, but what about teachers/supervisors for not stopping it? What about the class as a whole for not doing anything (facilitation)
3M and PFAS
Antwerp and 3M: forever chemicals (PFAS, PFOS) contamination => who is responsible?
Company produces ‘forever chemicals’ (chemicals that never disappear) => contaminate environment and ultimately people
The company is responsible => but it is a group not one person => everyone is responsible to an extent?
What about consumers who bought the product, sparking production?
What about the government for allowing for allowing this organization to exist
What are the two models of backward-looking collective responsibility?
Individual moral responsibility
I am morally responsible IF the following conditions apply:
The action is morally significant
Control or freedom condition: I am free to choose my actions
No coercion or external factors (e.g., intoxication)
Knowledge condition: I am aware of the impacts of my action
Collective moral responsibility: moral responsibility of groups for morally significant actions or omissions
People tend to assume it exists and can be used. Both individual and groups/collectives can be morally responsible.
What theory does Gilbert propose?
Gilbert’s plural subjective theory and her account of collective moral responsibility
There are two conceptions of groups: atomistic account (merely individuals => there is no such thing as a society => no collective responsibility) and Gilbert’s collectivistic account (groups are more than a collective group of individuals => group > individuals or the group is greater than the sum of its parts)
What is Gilbert’s view of groups?
Basec on collectivist account, groups are characterized by:
Joint commitment (towards a goal) => Implications: Sets norms => Something they ‘ought to do’ and Co-committed, to act ‘as one’
To act as a ‘body’ (towards that goal)
What are the consequences of joint commitment?
Beyond personal convictions (need to compromise)
Not one party can unilaterally change commitment (decisions are not made individually but as a group)
Entry-exit rules (enter a group = follow certain rules)
What are the types of joint commitment?
Basic joint commitment: We decide to act as a ‘we’/body’
‘Let’s found a fraternity’ or ‘Let us organize in a collective’
Non-basic commitment
Authorization (authorize a person to act on the interest of the group, like in a business setting)
‘You can decide what we do’ (when you go to vote and political parties say this => entering a non-basic commitment)
Potential risks (they will not always act on your interest or you may not fully agree with the decisions)
Practical value
What are important consequences of groups?
Authority: have authority to demand those in your group to act appropriately to that group (e.g,. O maneta na má companhia depois de ter assinado o contrato)
Unification: Groups constitute a form of unity
An agent is a unity, collective agent = collective unity
Groups as plural subjects (Gilbert)
Plural subject: any set of jointly committed persons
Does not imply plural subject have minds of their own (subjective conscious experiences)
Instead, plural subjects are jointly committed to a common goal acting as a collectively we towards that goal.
According to Gilbert, Collectives perform collective actions => Why does it make sense to speak of moral responsibility on a collective level?
Collective actions have moral significance
Characterized by freedom: actions are not forced
Collective knowledge/collectief beliefs: aware of moral impact of actions
Meet all three requirements of moral responsibility => collectives can be held morally responsible for what they do
What is Gilbert’s radical disjunction?
Possibility of radical disjunction between individual moral responsibility and collective moral responsibility
One might be individually responsible without collective responsibility
One might be individually responsible and collectively responsible
One might be collectively responsible without being individually responsible => Bullying: can still feel guilty of the bullying even if you didn’t engage in it.
How can you have Collective responsibility without individual responsibility?
It is possible that I am not personally blameworthy in any way in connection with our action, if
I am non-culpably ignorant of what we are doing or how we are doing it;
I did what I could reasonably be expected to do to stop our action or minimize its effects;
I had no choice in participation in the action we did;
my being jointly committed pressures me to participate, comes with a reluctance to betray, and means that I can be rebuked (due to my not being able to unilaterally rescind);
the power of collective (false) beliefs
How does guilbert explain collective emotions?
Feelings of membership guilt do not always make sense: I can be personally blameless but membership guilt is not related to me or my actions but my group (us) and our collective actions => Remorse as a ‘we’
Collective guilt: not focused on my concrete participation; for nn-basic joint commitment and about what we did
Practical importance of collective guilty: collective change => ‘never again’
Collective guilt => collective change (to avoid the feeling) => not repeating morally wrong actions.
What are the Pros and cons of previous views of groups?
Atomism (merely individuals):
(+) no supra-individual entities
(+) no individuals escaping responsibility
(-) in contrast with pre-theoretic intuitions
Collectivism:
(+) Responsibility of collectives is affirmed
(-) Collective as independent moral agent
(-) Individuals escaping moral responsibility
What is Miller’s alternative for collective responsability?
Joint moral responsibility (JMR).
Better than collectivism:
No supra-human collective entities ( collectives are not independent moral agents) => individual and collective morality are intertwined
Does not absolve group participants of individual responsibility
Better than atomistic accounts (Gilbert): provides a way to apply moral responsibility to groups.
What are the starting points of JMR?
Individuals and their relations only exist (no collectives)
Individuals engage in joint actions with collective ends or goals
Individuals have joint responsibility for joint actions in addition to individual responsibility for individual actions
When do people perform a join action?
One or more people perform a joint action IF:
each of them intentionally performs an individual action towards an end or goal
each of them does with the belief that in doing so they will jointly realize this end or goal
by each doing their part to realize the collective end or goal
even if none of the individual actions is causally necessary or sufficient to realize the collective end or goal
According to Miller’s JRM, when are we morally responsible?
IF the joint action that people are engaged in is morally significant: Action that is morally right or wrong Or intention of performing the action is morally right or wrong Or outcome of the action is morally good or bad
THEN they are jointly morally responsible:
Individuals are in addition to being morally responsible for their individual actions (their part)
also responsible for the jointly accomplished end (which they could not or did not accomplish on their own)
Example:
Group persons stabbing one man to death – joint action: Intention, beliefs, action. But Individual actions > collective end => Individual responsibilities For individual actions + Joint responsibility: (for the outcome) =?Fully morally responsible
Bullying: Joint action?
Collective goal/outcome + intention, action and belief + causal connection
Morally significant? => wrong intention, action and outcome
Responsibility?
Individual
Jointly (for outcome)
Examine the Sanda Dia and the 3M case through Millers’s perspective
JMR and Sanda Dia case
Individual engage in joint action: collective goal, intentionality & belief, actions and causal contribution => Yet, undesired outcome
Morally significant (despite lack of intention)
Moral responsibility for unintended outcome/lack of action and precaution
Individual responsibility AND additional joint responsibility
3M case
Large scale joint action and remains of that joint action
Institution: Structure of different (multiple) goals + layered joint actions
Natural joint responsibility and institutional joint responsibility differs when attached to roles/position
Moral outcome: joint moral responsibility
Are there Exemptions and excuses for joint responsibility?
Large scale versus small scale:
Not each participant in a large scale joint action is fully morally responsible
Partial moral responsibility OR a share in moral responsibility
If control function is not fulfilled there is no joint moral responsibility
Coercion
Deviant causal chains: Outcome through unintended means to an end, involuntary or accidental action
Give a summary of collective responsibility?
Gilbert:
There is a collective that is distinct from the individuals that jointly commit
Follows: I can feel guilt on behalf of this collective and also express remorse on its behalf
Follows: it may be that many individuals are not responsible while the collective is
Miller:
There are only individuals that are engaged in joint action to accomplish joint goals
Follows: I am responsible for my individual actions as well as for the jointly
