The final set of issues covered by the general theory of responsibility relate to the influence we have over the decisions made by others that can affect how we live. Just as we would not want to have no influence over others’ choice of action when that can impact on us, we should not leave others with no influence over our choice of action that can impact on them.
Citizen Participation: our decision-making involving each other
People’s responsibility can be diminished to the extent their influence over a course of action is reduced. Beyond matters of which individuals are fully in control themselves, there are many activities in society that involve others by design, accident, or unwelcome interference. It is not uncommon that out of impatience, excessive certitude, or low regard for the perspectives of others, some people make decisions without those affected ever getting a chance to have a say about them. This can happen in the context of any social group, from a neighbourhood, workplace, to a region, a country, or the world. If we are to involve one another in the decisions we make, we need to have citizen participation – secured through processes of informed and deliberative engagement. It is why over the course of history, democratic and participatory practices have been found to limit irresponsible behaviour much more than dictatorships or anarchic free-for-all.
The Problem of Imposition
To protect people’s capacity for responsible behaviour, we need to deal with the problem of imposition, which arises when individuals’ options for what to do are cut out by extraneous factors. Imposition can range from physical forces that cause involuntary movement and thus nullify responsibility completely; to interference such as duress that presents immoral options as alternatives to more painful outcome, which may not take away a person’s responsibility (even though in cases where the threatened pain is severe, the person’s actions may be forgiven). It may also come in the form of internal mental pressure, which can remove responsibility if it is truly irresistible in the sense that a person makes demonstrable yet unsuccessful efforts in rejecting it, but not if the person actually embraces the obsession/addiction as an integral part of their identity. Attempts to tackle the problem of imposition must also navigate the arguments deployed by those such as philosophical determinists who maintain that there is no such thing as responsibility since everyone’s behaviour is ultimately determined by a chain of causes that go back before a person’s birth; sincere or devious advocates who insist the weakness of will exhibited in any blameworthy action is sufficient to deny responsibility for it; and well-off reactionaries who want to impose impoverished life choices on others and hold that the poor and powerless must take full responsibility for how they live.
Volitional Thoughtfulness
We need to cultivate volitional thoughtfulness in people so that they can reflect on the choices they make, learn to have greater control over their thoughts and desires, and engage more effectively others who may be affected by their decisions as they would want to be engaged by others who make decisions that affect them. There should be better understanding of subsidiarity – regarding how decisions are best taken at the most local level except for when it has to be passed to an authority with wider jurisdiction and greater capacity because otherwise no decision can be effectively made or carried out. People should also learn about when decisions need to be delegated to others to take on the role of formulating a collective response, and how they can maintain real influence over their decisions.
Power Balance as a Socio-Political Goal
Responsibility is sustained by mutual consideration, and we need to reduce power inequalities in society if it is to flourish. We must promote power balance across communities by means of: [a] the development of more effective participatory decision-making, with better utilisation of tried and tested participatory approaches, so as to raise people’s understanding of and influence over decisions that can affect how they live, and improve the chances of all decision-makers going with the most responsible options; [b] the securing of greater civic parity, so that wealth and status gaps are reduced, no one is left vulnerable by deficient public safety net, and the influence of money over policies and practices is greatly curtailed; and [c] the strengthening of public accountability, so that where we have to entrust decisions to a number of elected or appointed figures (for reasons of efficiency, emergency, or simple feasibility), we can be confident that they will have to seek our views and can be held accountable by us for the decisions they take.
--
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1), go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 2), go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_11.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Thursday, 21 May 2020
Monday, 11 May 2020
The General Theory of Responsibility (part 2)
Let us turn now to the second set of issues that are central to the general theory of responsibility. We have looked at the importance of our concern for each other and what we accordingly need to do. It will be seen that in order to act appropriately on our concern for each other, we also need to be aware what will help or hinder others in practice. To differentiate responsibly between what merits belief or not, we need to be prepared to take account of the reasons and evidence put forward by others, as we would want them to be prepared to take account of the reasons and evidence put forward by us.
Cooperative Enquiry: our reasoning with each other
Human knowledge has been advanced through cooperative enquiry, exemplified by the empirical exchange and examination of information in scientific research, legal due process, and impartial public inquiry. It would clearly be self-defeating if all sides were to throw in groundless declarations or incoherent assertions. Cooperative enquiry requires logical and testable information to be brought together and scrutinised openly to see what stands up best at any given time and thus warrants assent. To act responsibly, we need to ascertain the veracity of conflicting claims, which involves being ready to give defensible reasons, listen and respond, and revise views in the light of verifiable evidence; and this approach requires all sides to engage in a mutually receptive mode of reasoning.
The Problem of Ignorance
Misunderstanding, confusion, deception, lack of information can mean that what people do may have very different effects from what they anticipate. Although it is often said that ignorance is no defence, that is only relevant where there is a clear obligation for people to find out about the implications of certain behaviour before they engage in it (for example, people cannot shrug off responsibility by deliberately not checking if certain activities would break the law when they know they should check; nor can responsibility for any harm resulting from drunken behaviour be bypassed when it is common knowledge how excessive alcohol consumption can lead to injurious actions). In all other situations where ignorance of the relevant facts cannot be avoided or foreseen, responsibility would be nullified. However, efforts to improve our knowledge and understanding will encounter obstacles from, for example, philosophical sceptics/relativists who deny there is any basis for distinguishing truth from falsehood; those who are overwhelmed by irrationality as a result of psychological or physiological damages; or fanatic followers of cults or dogmas who recoil from objective examination of their beliefs.
Cognitive Thoughtfulness
Ignorance can be reduced through the cultivation of cognitive thoughtfulness on two levels. For people who are open to learning, we should ensure education for all ages enhance their understanding of and skills in assessing rival claims and settling disagreement. They should be familiarised with how assertions, from ones about everyday occurrence to those putting forward complex theories, are subject to exchange of observation, evidence and arguments so that they can be accepted provisionally, revised or rejected. Supplementing direct enquiry would be indirect evaluation of claims made by a given authority or expert, based on the latter’s track record in complying with cooperative enquiry. For those whose minds seem closed to cooperative enquiry, we should connect their ‘unquestionable’ assumptions to experiences of events that may lead them to think again. By enabling them to live through what their dogmas or prejudices insist could not possibly happen, they could be brought round to re-examining what they think they ‘know’. Another effective technique is to link their deepest interests to trying out what would in practice achieve them – for example, discovering how science-based medication rather than superstitious rituals help their loved ones recover from serious sickness.
Objectivity as a Socio-Political Goal
Aside from minimising ignorance amongst individuals, there are many societal obstacles to cooperative enquiry that should be tackled. We need to promote objectivity across communities by means of: [a] the teaching and application of collaborative learning in all organisations, so that people working together can discover and appreciate how reliable claims are established through mutual testing and revision; [b] the establishment of systems for critical reviews with trained investigators and evaluators to oversee their operation, so that claims invalidated by new findings can be identified and put aside, while hitherto unaccepted claims can be reassessed as dependable if new evidence or conceptualisation warrants such a change; and [c] the support for responsible communication through the dissemination of up to date information, and the necessary regulation and enforcement to prevent false and deceptive communication that subverts ‘freedom of speech’ into a shield for vicious lies and egregious manipulation.
--
To be continued in ‘The General Theory of Responsibility: (part 3)’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_21.html.
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1)’, go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Cooperative Enquiry: our reasoning with each other
Human knowledge has been advanced through cooperative enquiry, exemplified by the empirical exchange and examination of information in scientific research, legal due process, and impartial public inquiry. It would clearly be self-defeating if all sides were to throw in groundless declarations or incoherent assertions. Cooperative enquiry requires logical and testable information to be brought together and scrutinised openly to see what stands up best at any given time and thus warrants assent. To act responsibly, we need to ascertain the veracity of conflicting claims, which involves being ready to give defensible reasons, listen and respond, and revise views in the light of verifiable evidence; and this approach requires all sides to engage in a mutually receptive mode of reasoning.
The Problem of Ignorance
Misunderstanding, confusion, deception, lack of information can mean that what people do may have very different effects from what they anticipate. Although it is often said that ignorance is no defence, that is only relevant where there is a clear obligation for people to find out about the implications of certain behaviour before they engage in it (for example, people cannot shrug off responsibility by deliberately not checking if certain activities would break the law when they know they should check; nor can responsibility for any harm resulting from drunken behaviour be bypassed when it is common knowledge how excessive alcohol consumption can lead to injurious actions). In all other situations where ignorance of the relevant facts cannot be avoided or foreseen, responsibility would be nullified. However, efforts to improve our knowledge and understanding will encounter obstacles from, for example, philosophical sceptics/relativists who deny there is any basis for distinguishing truth from falsehood; those who are overwhelmed by irrationality as a result of psychological or physiological damages; or fanatic followers of cults or dogmas who recoil from objective examination of their beliefs.
Cognitive Thoughtfulness
Ignorance can be reduced through the cultivation of cognitive thoughtfulness on two levels. For people who are open to learning, we should ensure education for all ages enhance their understanding of and skills in assessing rival claims and settling disagreement. They should be familiarised with how assertions, from ones about everyday occurrence to those putting forward complex theories, are subject to exchange of observation, evidence and arguments so that they can be accepted provisionally, revised or rejected. Supplementing direct enquiry would be indirect evaluation of claims made by a given authority or expert, based on the latter’s track record in complying with cooperative enquiry. For those whose minds seem closed to cooperative enquiry, we should connect their ‘unquestionable’ assumptions to experiences of events that may lead them to think again. By enabling them to live through what their dogmas or prejudices insist could not possibly happen, they could be brought round to re-examining what they think they ‘know’. Another effective technique is to link their deepest interests to trying out what would in practice achieve them – for example, discovering how science-based medication rather than superstitious rituals help their loved ones recover from serious sickness.
Objectivity as a Socio-Political Goal
Aside from minimising ignorance amongst individuals, there are many societal obstacles to cooperative enquiry that should be tackled. We need to promote objectivity across communities by means of: [a] the teaching and application of collaborative learning in all organisations, so that people working together can discover and appreciate how reliable claims are established through mutual testing and revision; [b] the establishment of systems for critical reviews with trained investigators and evaluators to oversee their operation, so that claims invalidated by new findings can be identified and put aside, while hitherto unaccepted claims can be reassessed as dependable if new evidence or conceptualisation warrants such a change; and [c] the support for responsible communication through the dissemination of up to date information, and the necessary regulation and enforcement to prevent false and deceptive communication that subverts ‘freedom of speech’ into a shield for vicious lies and egregious manipulation.
--
To be continued in ‘The General Theory of Responsibility: (part 3)’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_21.html.
For ‘The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1)’, go to: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Friday, 1 May 2020
The General Theory of Responsibility (part 1)
Why should people take responsibility for how they affect the lives of others? What is the basis for differentiating responsible behaviour from irresponsible ones? And how can society help its members act more responsibly?
According to the general theory of responsibility, these questions can be answered with reference to three interrelated sets of issues:
• Our concern for each other
• Our reasoning with each other
• Our decision-making involving each other
Through looking at these issues and their implications, we will get an overall picture of how responsibility connects in a way that is crucial to advancing our wellbeing. We will begin with the first of these in this essay (and in parts 2 and 3 we will look at the other two sets of issues).
Mutual Responsibility: our concern for each other
Responsibility matters because of our concern for each other. This is not about pure altruism, or about instrumentalist help for others to secure gains for oneself, but essentially about reciprocity – in caring about the wellbeing of others as we would want others to care about our wellbeing. It is embodied in the Golden Rule which, over the course of history, has been found to run through the emergence of the earliest civilisations down to diverse contemporary social structures. It endorses our treatment of others as we would have others treat us, and castigate attitudes and actions that go against this. Mutual responsibility – the recognition that we need to account for how our behaviour may support or hinder each other – is an unmistakable social reality that is at the heart of human existence. People who would pay no heed to how their behaviour might impact on others, could expect others to treat them with similar disregard.
The Problem of Indifference
As concern for others is the foundation of responsibility, its absence leaves us with the first key obstacle to responsible behaviour - indifference. Some people may not feel any concern for others because of their unfortunate upbringing, acquired prejudice, psychological trauma, or some form of pathology. There are also people who reject concern for others on different grounds: for example, philosophical egoists who refuse to accept that we can ever genuinely care about the wellbeing of others; free-riders/exploiters who without hesitation neglect the wellbeing of others when they seek to take advantage of them for their own benefit; or adherents to some extremist doctrine that celebrates apathy or even disdain towards the suffering of others, and leads them to care nothing about how their actions may impact on others. If we allow indifference to persist as a result of any of these factors, we would end up with more people perceiving others as beings whose feelings count for nothing, and hence lack any sense that they should take responsibility for how their behaviour may affect others.
Empathic Thoughtfulness
We cannot solve the problem of indifference by invoking some ‘absolute’ justification for our position. Our sense of mutual responsibility comes from our interpersonal connections with other people. To avoid such connections becoming deficient, we should cultivate empathic thoughtfulness by means of education, social support, and where necessary, rehabilitation. We know from developmental psychology that empathy and a propensity towards mutual concern grow from infancy under normal caring conditions. There are techniques for strengthening these sensibilities, and methods to restore them if they have been depleted. They can enable people to appreciate how others could be/have been hurt by their actions, and reflect on what changes they would want to make in the future. There is no guarantee they would always work, and in cases where we are dealing with those whose irresponsible acts cause harm or pose a dangerous threat to others, then proportionate forms of punitive as well as restorative response may also be required to remind transgressors of the implications of not taking others’ wellbeing into consideration in their behaviour.
Togetherness as a Socio-Political Goal
Beyond dealing with individual cases, there are society-wide challenges to counter the neglect of mutual responsibility. We need to promote togetherness across communities by means of: [a] the development of shared missions, so that people can recognise and appreciate the threats and opportunities they can handle much more effectively by working collaboratively, and learn about practical ways to help achieve common goals; [b] the championing of mutual respect, through formal protection of everyone’s entitlement to dignified treatment, systemic countering of prejudice, and impartial adjudication of complaints against discriminatory acts; and [c] the provision of coherent membership that explains why people are admitted as members, what mutual commitment is entailed by being a member, and the transparent basis on which membership terms may be revoked or restored.
--
To be continued in ‘The General Theory of Responsibility: (part 2)’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_11.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
According to the general theory of responsibility, these questions can be answered with reference to three interrelated sets of issues:
• Our concern for each other
• Our reasoning with each other
• Our decision-making involving each other
Through looking at these issues and their implications, we will get an overall picture of how responsibility connects in a way that is crucial to advancing our wellbeing. We will begin with the first of these in this essay (and in parts 2 and 3 we will look at the other two sets of issues).
Mutual Responsibility: our concern for each other
Responsibility matters because of our concern for each other. This is not about pure altruism, or about instrumentalist help for others to secure gains for oneself, but essentially about reciprocity – in caring about the wellbeing of others as we would want others to care about our wellbeing. It is embodied in the Golden Rule which, over the course of history, has been found to run through the emergence of the earliest civilisations down to diverse contemporary social structures. It endorses our treatment of others as we would have others treat us, and castigate attitudes and actions that go against this. Mutual responsibility – the recognition that we need to account for how our behaviour may support or hinder each other – is an unmistakable social reality that is at the heart of human existence. People who would pay no heed to how their behaviour might impact on others, could expect others to treat them with similar disregard.
The Problem of Indifference
As concern for others is the foundation of responsibility, its absence leaves us with the first key obstacle to responsible behaviour - indifference. Some people may not feel any concern for others because of their unfortunate upbringing, acquired prejudice, psychological trauma, or some form of pathology. There are also people who reject concern for others on different grounds: for example, philosophical egoists who refuse to accept that we can ever genuinely care about the wellbeing of others; free-riders/exploiters who without hesitation neglect the wellbeing of others when they seek to take advantage of them for their own benefit; or adherents to some extremist doctrine that celebrates apathy or even disdain towards the suffering of others, and leads them to care nothing about how their actions may impact on others. If we allow indifference to persist as a result of any of these factors, we would end up with more people perceiving others as beings whose feelings count for nothing, and hence lack any sense that they should take responsibility for how their behaviour may affect others.
Empathic Thoughtfulness
We cannot solve the problem of indifference by invoking some ‘absolute’ justification for our position. Our sense of mutual responsibility comes from our interpersonal connections with other people. To avoid such connections becoming deficient, we should cultivate empathic thoughtfulness by means of education, social support, and where necessary, rehabilitation. We know from developmental psychology that empathy and a propensity towards mutual concern grow from infancy under normal caring conditions. There are techniques for strengthening these sensibilities, and methods to restore them if they have been depleted. They can enable people to appreciate how others could be/have been hurt by their actions, and reflect on what changes they would want to make in the future. There is no guarantee they would always work, and in cases where we are dealing with those whose irresponsible acts cause harm or pose a dangerous threat to others, then proportionate forms of punitive as well as restorative response may also be required to remind transgressors of the implications of not taking others’ wellbeing into consideration in their behaviour.
Togetherness as a Socio-Political Goal
Beyond dealing with individual cases, there are society-wide challenges to counter the neglect of mutual responsibility. We need to promote togetherness across communities by means of: [a] the development of shared missions, so that people can recognise and appreciate the threats and opportunities they can handle much more effectively by working collaboratively, and learn about practical ways to help achieve common goals; [b] the championing of mutual respect, through formal protection of everyone’s entitlement to dignified treatment, systemic countering of prejudice, and impartial adjudication of complaints against discriminatory acts; and [c] the provision of coherent membership that explains why people are admitted as members, what mutual commitment is entailed by being a member, and the transparent basis on which membership terms may be revoked or restored.
--
To be continued in ‘The General Theory of Responsibility: (part 2)’: https://henry-tam.blogspot.com/2020/05/the-general-theory-of-responsibility_11.html
For an overview of the theory and a guide to further reading, go to: https://hbtam.blogspot.com/2020/04/the-general-theory-of-responsibility.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)