Who will bear moral responsibility?

Abstract

One of the most disturbing paradoxes of modern times is that an acute sense of expanding moral responsibility goes hand in hand with a growing inability to bear such responsibility. This article demonstrates how modern technology, in particular information technology, has contributed to both the expansion of moral responsibility and the development of the responsibility gap. In order to deal adequately with the challenges modern technology poses in respect of moral responsibility, it has become necessary to supplement the classical notion of retrospective moral responsibility with the new notion of prospective moral responsibility. In the case of retrospective responsibility some or other negative outcome of the past is ascribed to a particular person or persons. In the case of prospective responsibility, the responsibility of preventing humans and nature from being actively harmed or to realise desirable future conditions by taking the necessary measures in the present, is ascribed to a particular person or persons, or, more likely, to a particular institution or institutions. SAMEVATTING'n Ontstellende paradoks van die moderne tyd is dat 'n besef van toenemende morele verantwoordelikheid gepaardgaan met 'n toenemende onvermoe om die verantwoordelikheid na te kom. Die artikel toon aan hoedat moderne tegnologie, in die besonder inligtingstegnologie, tot beide die uitbreiding van morele verantwoordelikheid en die ontstaan van die verantwoordelikheidsgaping aanleiding gegee het. Om die uitdagings wat moderne tegnologie met betrekking tot morele verantwoordelikheid aan die mens stel, die hoof te kan bied, het dit nodig geword om die klassieke opvatting van retrospektiewe morele verantwoordelikheid aan te vulmet die nuwe begrip van prospektiewe morele verantwoordelikheid. In die geval van retrospektiewe verantwoordelikheid word 'n negatiewe resultaat van die verlede aan 'n bepaalde persoon of persone toegedig. In die geval van prospektiewe verantwoordelikheid word die verantwoordelikheid om toekomstige skade aan mense of die natuur te voorkom of om gunstige toekomstige omstandighede te skep deur die nodige stappe in die hede te neem, toegeskryf aan n bepaalde persoon of persone, of-meer waarskynlik -aan n bepaalde ins telling of instellings.

Personal-ethical perspectives in the work of Etienne de Villiers

“…To this end, De Villiers's (2002 a, 2002b) compares Harry Kuitert's 'thin' (Walzer) approach (stressing autonomy, technology broadens our responsibility, aimed at ethical consensus with others in respect of public policy, the admission of euthanasia for the relief of suffering) with Gilbert Mielander's 'thick' approach (focusing upon what is specifically Christian, the commandment 'thou shalt not kill', God gives and takes life, rejecting euthanasia and permitting only the conditional cessation of medical treatment). However, in this article, De Villiers (2002aVilliers ( , 2002b does not, as is customary after the characteristic Christian viewpoint and consultation with other Christians (the 'thick' approach), follow up with perspectives for public debate from those of other persuasions (the 'thin' approach).…”

“…Huber in De Villiers 2007a:93). De Villiers's (2002a, 2002b contribution to the issue of euthanasia, amongst others, indicates how crucial different approaches to ethical issues are and how they can give rise to very different ethical judgements. To this end, De Villiers's (2002 a, 2002b) compares Harry Kuitert's 'thin' (Walzer) approach (stressing autonomy, technology broadens our responsibility, aimed at ethical consensus with others in respect of public policy, the admission of euthanasia for the relief of suffering) with Gilbert Mielander's 'thick' approach (focusing upon what is specifically Christian, the commandment 'thou shalt not kill', God gives and takes life, rejecting euthanasia and permitting only the conditional cessation of medical treatment).…”

After Fukushima: The precautionary principle revisited

“…Like no other theologian, Etienne de Villiers discussed over the last number of years the ways in which Christian theology has taken up newer debates on an ethics of responsibility (see De Villiers 2002, 2003, 2007a, 2007b, 2011a, 2011b. He analyses the importance as well as the limits of Hans Jonas' The Imperative of Responsibility (Jonas 1979(Jonas , 1984 for the development of an ethics of responsibility in philosophy as well as in theology.…”

“…Whereas in the case of retrospective responsibility, events in the past and their consequences are attributed to a person or to persons, prospective responsibility relates to the task of preventing humans and nature from being harmed in the future by present actions and of providing by present actions desirable future conditions for the life of humans and nature. It further ascribes this task to a person or persons or to an institution or institutions (De Villiers 2002).…”

Can MNCs be held morally responsible for the unintended consequences of their operations?

“…At least two traditions in understanding responsibility can be identified (De Villiers, 2002). Responsibility as imputation -or retrospective responsibility -continues to be the most prominent tradition (De Villiers, 2002:16).…”