Open Access Peer-reviewed Research Article

Is individual responsibility enough?

Article Sidebar

Action responsibility
Download PDF
Submitted   Nov 4, 2019
Published   Nov 14, 2019
Issue    Vol 1 No 1 (2020)
DOI   10.25082/IJAH.2019.01.002

Views

2768

Downloads

1687

Citations

PlumX Metrics

Main Article Content

Hans Lenk corresponding author
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), Department of Philosophy, Karlsruhe, Germany

Abstract

Intriguing challenges, risks, and functions for responsible behaviour in a system-technological and eco-social world are addressed from a methodological and ethical point of view. Various kinds and levels of responsibility are distinguished in terms of action (causal) responsibility, of task and role responsibility, and of universal moral and legal responsibilities well as from institutional and association perspectives. Some problems of ascribing, justifying, and distributing responsibility are discussed. Some professional codes of ethics in science and technology and characteristic responsibility conflicts are analysed, and 20 priority rules are proposed to help deal with or solve these important problems.

Keywords
universal moral responsibility, individual responsibility, collective responsibility, corporate responsibility, distribution of responsibility, social traps, professional codes of ethics, priority rules

Article Details

How to Cite
Lenk, H. (2019). Is individual responsibility enough?. International Journal of Arts and Humanities, 1(1), 3-12. https://doi.org/10.25082/IJAH.2019.01.002
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

References

  1. Farooq Q, Fu P, Ahmad S, et al. Assessing Human Factor in the Adoption of Computer-Based Information Systems as the Internal Corporate Social Responsibility. SAGE Open, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244019868858
  2. Gerner M. Assessing and managing sustainability in international perspective: corporate sustainability across culturestowards a strategic framework implementation approach. International Journal of Corporate Social Responsibility, 2019, 4(1): 1-34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40991-019-0043-x
  3. Lenk H and Maring M. Ethikkodizes und Verantwortung in der Soziologie und in den Sozialwissenschaften. Das Moralische in der Soziologie, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83321-1_20
  4. Russell H. Collective action as an agreeable n-prisoners. Systems Research & Behavioral Science, 2010, 16(5): 472-481. https://doi.org/10.1002/bs.3830160507
  5. Hennessey JW and Gert B . Moral Rules and Moral Ideals: A Useful Distinction in Business and Professional Practice. Journal of Business Ethics, 1985, 4(2): 105-115. https://doi.org/10.2307/25071481
  6. Lenk H and Maring M. Engineering - between can and ought The responsibility for technology. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 1996, 21(4): 316-323. https://doi.org/10.1179/isr.1996.21.4.316
  7. Lenk H and Maring M. Ethikkodizes und Verantwortung in der Soziologie und in den Sozialwissenschaften. Das Moralische in der Soziologie. VS Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften, 1998. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-83321-1_20
  8. Lenk H. On an Interpretive Definition of the Concepts of Value and of their Descriptive and Normative Uses, 2006.
  9. Lenk H and Lenk U. Integration of medical responsibility. Diskussionsforum Med Ethik, 1993: 11-12.
  10. Buhl WL. Soziologie und System¨okologie. SozialeWelt, 1986, 37(4): 363-389. https://doi.org/10.2307/40877483
  11. Simon HA. (1987) Behavioural Economics and ‘Satisficing’. Palgrave Macmillan (eds) The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Palgrave Macmillan, 1987, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_413-1