Taking
responsibility for the consequences of what we do – or don't do –
is often portrayed as optional, yet I would argue that
responsibility, in the most basic sense, is synonymous with
causality. The only thing that's optional is what we choose to do
about it.
An
observer of the consequences of my actions will, given the proper
tools and enough time, be able to trace those consequences back to my
actions, and to me, regardless of whether or not I choose to accept
that my actions led to the consequences. That I took the actions
makes me responsible for the consequences, just as not taking the
actions would make me responsible for the consequences not occurring.
I
may not have been aware of the link between my actions and its
consequences, and may still not be. That's irrelevant in determining
responsibility, but it does offer a way for me to decide whether or
not to take the actions in the future. If I refuse to learn about
the link, I am surrendering awareness and the ability to make
conscious decisions about the events I cause, which risks my being
responsible for far more than I'm willing to accept.
Because
consequences can include damage and death, it is reasonable for any
system (such as a society or ecosystem) that could suffer such
consequences to restrict the ability and willingness of its members
to take actions that cause them. Restricting ability can involve
limiting access to the resources that enable the action. Restricting
willingness can involve providing personal feedback that either makes
alternatives more attractive or makes the taking of the action more
unattractive (which in extreme cases can include pain or threat of
death, which is on a smaller scale than the potential consequences
for the system). Similarly, actions whose consequences have the
potential to improve the condition of a system can be encouraged, by
providing positive feedback to its members, making alternatives less
attractive, and providing more resources for taking those actions.
This
should be kept in mind any time someone says they are willing to
assume "personal responsibility," implicitly asking for the
freedom to act without interference from society. Are they capable
of anticipating the consequences of their actions, as their statement
implies? Are the consequences positive or at least neutral for the
people experiencing them? If the answers to either of these questions
is "no," then it is dangerous to let them proceed, and we
will be just as responsible for the outcome if we don't stop them.
No comments:
Post a Comment