Abstract

Clarity is needed regarding moral responsibility, for theoretical and practical purposes, such as philosophical coherence and social regulation. In this article, I examine the notion of (individual) moral responsibility. I first dispense with a preliminary concern, that the notion of moral responsibility can be used in at least two distinct ways, which I argue are necessarily related and hence can be jointly addressed in this article. I then elaborate on what I consider to be the three key tenets of the proposed theoretical approach: chance, choice and constraint (which can hence be termed the 3Cs theory of responsibility); specifically, I consider chance as indeterminate (although calculable), whereas choice and constraint are determined by chance and by each other. I then integrate these tenets to form a rudimentary yet useful theory of (individual) moral responsibility, particularly referring to the iterative process of chance, choice and constraint. And then I apply this theory to three sufficiently dissimilar types of situations of ascending complexity: the responsibility of a democratically elected politician regarding his or her public communication, the responsibility of a person with psychosis regarding his or her psychosis-related behavior, and the responsibility of a parent regarding his or her dependent child’s upbringing. Finally, I summarize and attend to special and general implications of my conclusions, such as the importance of considering expected – rather than actual – impact of chance, choice and constraint, during moral deliberation for assignment of (individual) moral responsibility.

Highlights

  • The discussion of moral responsibility foraction is longstanding in philosophy and theology

  • Another example is the question who if anyone is morally responsible for the pitiful condition of public primary and secondary education in some countries such as the USA, e.g., Facebook’s founder Mark Zuckerberg is widely considered to have taken moral responsibility for this due to his donation of 100,000,000 US Dollars into New Jersey’s public school system in 2010

  • At least according to common morality, a person whose reality testing is impaired and who acts on his or her psychosis such as delusional beliefs or hallucinatory perception is exempt from moral responsibility for these behaviors as he or she could not know better or even differently

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The discussion of moral responsibility for (in)action is longstanding in philosophy and theology. Persons and other types of self-determining agents should morally choose in relation to their changing context, i.e., based on their moral principles or values and based on limitations on their choice imposed by chance and constraint as well as based on expected transformations of constraint and of consequent choice resulting from their initial choice Note that this may be an example of the possible complementarity of an intent based moral theory approach (of which deontology is the best known special case) and an expected impact based moral theory approach (of which consequentialism or utilitarianism is the best known special case). How does this rudimentary theory of (individual) moral responsibility test when applied to three sufficiently dissimilar types of situations of ascending complexity?

Public Communication by a Democratically Elected Politician
Psychosis Related Behavior of a Person with Psychosis
Upbringing of a Dependent Child by a Parent
Summary
Implications
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call