Theories of Responsibility Accountability Liability

8/2/2019 Theories of Responsibility Accountability Liability

1/95

1

Responsibility, Accountability, and Liability:

Studies in the Theory of Responsibility for

Engineering Ethicsand Engineering Accountability

A mans ethical behavior should be based effectively on sympathy, education and

social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would be in a poor way if he had to berestrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death

-- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

We live as if the world were as it should be, to show what it can be


2/95

2

The Importance of Understanding theConcept of Responsibility

My hypothesis is that technological risks, vulnerabilitiesand failures often occur because responsibilities areinappropriately assigned. If we can construct somemodel for the responsibility of actions taken or tasksperformed, that, for example may have lead to a

technological disaster, we are poised to make betterdecisions about the ascription of moral responsibility andaccountability

This will reduce vulnerabilities and subsequent failuresand disasters

To usefully reason about responsibilities in a complexsocio-technical system, we must have some way ofmodeling the responsibility itself (in addition to, anddistinct from, the important task of modeling theassignment of responsibilities)


3/95

3

The Concept of Responsibility

Four-Fold Definition of Responsibility

Causal Responsibility

Liability-Responsibility

Role-Responsibility

Moral-Responsibility


4/95

4

Causal Responsibility

A purely descriptive sense of responsibility The heavy rain is responsible for the flooding The operator was responsible for turning off the

control switch

The But-For conception of being causallyresponsible:

X was causally responsible for Y = But for the occurrence of X, Y would not have

happened For Example: But for the operator turning the

switch, the control would not have went off


5/95

5

The Concept of Liability

Liability for ones actions means that one canrightly be made to pay for the adverse effects ofones actions on others

Automobile liability insurance is intended to

cover the costs of damage to other persons orproperty

We are usually liable for such payments as longas we are causally responsible, even if our

actions were unintentional Liability, does not necessarily involve moralresponsibility for the action


6/95

6

Strict Liability

It means that no excusing conditions areapplicable or accepted

Responsibility without fault

Strict Products Liability

Part of the debate about legal liability

concerns where the line should be drawnwhen assigning strict liability


7/95

7


Charges of strict liability in torts (harms) are generally assigned tomanufacturers for products that are in a defective condition orunreasonably dangerous.

That liability can be assigned regardless of whether the defendanthas been negligent or has been careful (applying acceptedstandards of care for the product, its design, its manufacture, itsassembly and associated warnings).

In order to prove strict liability, the plaintiff need not prove that thedefendant's action fell below society's expectation for reasonablebehavior. Instead, the plaintiff must prove that the product per sewas in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous. It is certainlytrue that negligent behavior can result in a product in a defective

condition unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff may, of coursepursue both theories of liability at the same time


8/95

8


In order to apply strict liability for products, courts haverequired the following:1. The 'product' was in a 'defective condition [resulting in a product

that is ] unreasonably dangerous'. Defects can be created bymanufacture, assembly, design, warning labels, marketing, etc.

2. The defendant was in the 'stream of commerce' that producesthe product and/or delivers the product to the customer(manufacturer, subcontractor, wholesaler, distributor, retailer,etc.).

3. The product was defective when it left the defendant's hands.4. The product was intended to reach the plaintiff without

substantial change.5. The defect caused in fact) physical harm to the plaintiff. (Strict

liability in torts may relieve the plaintiff of responsibility forunforeseeable misuse, abuse, alterations and other defenses


9/95

9

Strict Products Liability The rationale used by courts for imposing strict liability in tort

includes three principles: 1) deterrence, 2) loss spreading, and 3)responsibility

Deterrence: courts have stated that strict liability in torts encouragemanufacturers (and others in the 'stream of commerce') to makeproducts safer. This increased liability may make products moreexpensive, but courts argue that the increased price more accuratelyreflects the true social costs of the products.

Loss spreading: courts have stated that strict liability spreads lossesthat would be a hardship upon individuals, but the manufacturer(and others in the 'stream of commerce') can offset the increasedrisk by purchasing insurance. The ethical basis of this principle isutilitarianism

In addition to deterrence and loss spreading, courts have also

argued that applying strict liability places responsibility (liability) onthe same entities and individuals that control the design,specifications, manufacturing tolerances, material specifications,and condition of the final product as it is delivered to the ultimatecustomer.


10/95

10

Role Responsibility

Role-Responsibility: Whenever a personoccupies a distinctive place or office in aSocial organization, to which specific

duties are attachedhe or she is properlysaid to be responsible for the performanceof these duties, or for doing what isnecessary to fulfill them.

Such duties are a persons (role)responsibilities.


11/95

11

The Concept of Role Responsibility

Whenever a person occupies a distinctive place or office in a Social

organization, to which specific duties are attachedhe or she is properly said to

be responsible for the performance of these duties, or for doing what is necessaryto fulfill them. Such duties are a persons (role) responsibilities.

The term "role includes tasks assigned to people by agreement or otherwise.

The term role-responsibility generally refers to a situation where a certainperson occupies a distinct place or office in a social organization, and particularduties are attached to this role in order to provide for the welfare of others or toadvance in some specific way the objectives or functions of the concernedorganization.

It is necessary to differentiate

Internal role responsibility responsibility for the role one plays as amember of an organization or professionExternal role responsibility responsibility for the role one plays in thelarger society and culture


12/95

12

Role Responsibilitiesin Professional Engineering

Role responsibilities are often recognized asprofessional responsibilities, and one of the key issues ofengineering ethics is to formulate the relevant sets ofresponsibilities that can be attached to the roles of the

members of the engineering community

What are the duties and obligations that are attached toan individual or group of engineers with respect to theirrole in a professional organization, corporation, or

society?

How best can engineers fulfill their role responsibilities,duties and obligations?


13/95

13

Role Mapping

Without a way to effectively connect the various responsibilities thatpeople in organizations have with their roles in the organization,accountability may not be able to be established and this can allowpeople to avoid responsibility for their decisions and/or their actions

Role Mapping techniques are essential in order to ensureappropriate matching of roles and responsibilities across the

organization. Role Mapping-who does what in terms of roles; what is each

persons commitment/promise of performance and how does itcontribute to overall organizational results.

This includes:

Clarify organizational goals and objectives Identify every employees personal accountability for both results and

values Measure performance of both the organization and every employee


14/95

14

Role Mapping

Clarifies unexpected complexity, problemareas, redundancy, unnecessary loops,and tasks where simplification and

standardization may be possible;

Helps identifies roles and responsibilities,thus supporting more effective allocation

of staff resources and more effectivestakeholder partnerships


15/95

15

Moral Responsibility To say a person is responsible in this sense is to say that the person is

deserving of blame. This sense of "responsible" seems to imply fault. That is, when we say people are responsible in this sense we are

evaluating their behavior relative to some principle or standard. Those responsible in this evaluative sense may also be responsible in

one of the other senses of the term

an assessment of responsibility in one of the first three senses is often the basis forattributing responsibility in this fourth sense

Moral Responsibility: Accountability for the actions one performs andthe consequences they bring about, for which a moral agent could be

justly punished or rewarded. It is commonly held to require the agent's

freedom to have done otherwise (autonomy). Moral responsibility is a normative notionit involves an evaluation Connected to other concepts such as duty, obligation, knowledge,

freedom, choice, accountability, agency, praise, blame, intention, pride,guilt, shame, conscience, and character


16/95

16

Two Types of Moral Responsibility

The assignment of moral responsibility based onthe attribution of accountability to a moral agent,where the moral agent acted freely and

possessed the capacity for rational choice andthe agent has acted voluntarily

Moral Responsibility in the second sense reflectsa positive judgment about the manner in which

the moral agent has deliberated and theparticular way they choose to act


17/95

17

Types of Moral Responsibility Attribution

Depending on the kind of responsibility, there aredifferent mechanisms for attributing responsibility

Responsibility can be attributed: Ex Ante (Before something happens) as in I take full

responsibility that nothing will go wrong Ex Post (After something happens) as in I take full

responsibility for everything that went wrong

Assignment of responsibility is not an all or

nothing affair individuals can be assignedvarious degrees of responsibility based on avariety of influencing factors


18/95

18

To hold someone morally responsible for their actions or omissions,

At least five conditions need to be met:

(1) That the subject had some role to play in the particular chain of events

(2) That the person was competent to understand their role in the chain of events,

and that their competency is relevant to the issue at hand

(3) That the person act voluntarily, and if not, what precluded or diminished theircapacity to act voluntarily?

(4) That the person was able to influence the chain of events, and if not, what

precluded or diminished their capacity to influence the chain of events?

(5) That the person was aware of the effects of their actions and knew about the

results and their own power of influence or lack of power

(6) Related concepts: Rationality, Freedom, Intentionality, Autonomy

Ascriptions of Individual Moral Responsibility


19/95

19

A Reasonable Care Model of Professional Responsibility

(1) As a member of a profession taking on a specific role in alarge organization (corporation, government), E has a duty toconform to the standard operating procedures of his or herprofession as well as fulfilling all of the responsibilities whichare attached to that particular role within the organization.

At time t, decision or action (X) conforms to the standard ofreasonable care and of role responsibility as defined in (1)

E omits to execute decision or action (X) at time t (culpableignorance may be relevant here)

Harm (H) is caused to some person or group of persons (P)as a result of Es failure (f) to decide or do X (HP = EfX)


20/95

20

Moral Responsibility and Role Responsibility

Questions of accountability are often raisedwhen an individual or group is thought to beresponsible for a failed technology.

For example, the breaking of a dam may be theresult of such factors as honest mistakes instatics or dynamics analyses; careless,negligent, or even criminal misconduct;

incompetence; and the use of substandardmaterials


21/95

21

Moral Responsibility and Free Will

Instances of coercion and constraint may exempt agents from judgments ofmoral responsibility

Coercion and constraint mean the imposition of some external force thatcompels or precludes a particular choice or a particular action itself

Consideration of the form and degree of external force imposed can affectthe extent to which one considers an action to have been less than

voluntary or non-voluntary Principle: the greater the threat imposed by some external source, the moreit eliminates freedom of choice

The more freedom of choice is eliminated, the less voluntary actionsbecome

Some threats reduce the voluntariness of an actions by making any otherchoice extremely difficulty for an individual to make in the face of the

relevant threat The greater the coercion or constraint, the less likely we will consider the

action voluntary and the less moral responsibility we will assign to the agent One often can be excused from being held responsible for an action if the

moral agent was coerced or forced to perform the action contrary or againstthe agents free will


22/95

22

Comparing Liability and Moral Responsibility

Liability

Particular: Derives fromlegislation in force in a certaintime and place

Limited: Applies only to specificPeople at specific times or places

Divisible: It can be delegatedor distributed

It can be waived: Sometimes notapplicable, implemented orenforced

Punishable

Moral Responsibility

Universal: Ethical principles aspire touniversality in that they are not limitedto particular people or particulargroups or societies

Unlimited: It applies to any person inthe same situation

Indivisible: It cannot be delegated nordistributed

It cannot be waived: it always applies

Not based on punishment exceptsocial shame or guilty conscience


23/95

23

Legal Liability vs. Moral Responsibility

The essential characteristics of liabilityresponsibility demonstrate its limitations asa legitimate response in many areas of

engineering, technology, and science

Examples: Nuclear Technology,Biotechnology, Nanotechnology, ArtificialIntelligence


24/95

24

Accountability

Responsibility and blameworthiness are only a part of whatis covered when we apply the robust and intuitive notion ofaccountability

When we say someone is accountable for a harm, we mayalso mean that he or she is liable to punishment (e.g., mustpay a fine, be censured by a professional organization, goto jail), or is liable to compensate a victim (usually bypaying damages).

In most actual cases these different strands ofresponsibility, censure, and compensation convergebecause those who are to blame for harms are usuallythose who must pay in some way or other for them.


25/95

25

3 Motivations for Accountability

Accountability as a virtue that is desirable in itsown right

Accountability as a guideline for answerability

which motivates precautionary behavior that, inturn, caters to social welfare

Accountability as a tracing too that allows us, aposteriori, to identify the people involved in

accidents and damage-inducing errors, punishthe responsible if necessary and compensatethe victims if possible


26/95

26

individuality, personhood

conceptual foundations ofaccountability

responsibility, fault, guilt

accountability


27/95

27

A Typology of Moral Accountability

Human Actions/Behavior

Recklessness

Negligence

Incompetence

Supererogatory

Dutiful

Due Diligence

Malice

Competence

Blameworthy

Praiseworthy


28/95

28


Malice: to set out on a course of action with the deliberate aim of imposing harm orrisks to people

Recklessness: to act knowing that it will cause harm or risk, but not taking thisproperly into account

Negligence: the failure to exercise in the given circumstances that degree of care forthe safety of others which a reasonable person would exercise under the same orsimilar circumstances

Incompetence: not qualified or suited for a purpose; showing lack of skill oraptitude; "a bungling workman"; "did a clumsy job"; "his fumbling attempt to put up ashelf"

Competence: qualified or suited for a purpose; showing appropriate skill or aptitude Due Diligence: the exercise in the given circumstances that degree of care for the

safety of others which a reasonable person would exercise under the same or similarcircumstances Dutiful: to know what the right thing to do is and to do it regardless of how it effects

you Supererogatory behavior: going above and beyond the call of duty


29/95

29


What is the difference between ignoranceand incompetence?

Ignorance is when you do somethingwrong because you do not know anybetter

Incompetence is when you do something

wrong even though you do or should knowbetter


30/95

30

Responsibility vs. Accountability

Accountability Implies imminence of retribution

for unfulfilled trust or violatedobligations

The focus is more upon whatothers expect from the personwho is accountable

Other -Centered Includes judgment and the extent

of judgment for the success orfailure to do, complete, or protectthat for which a person is heldaccountable

Accountability always assumes aprior responsibility for we alwayslay out what we expect before wecan lay out what theconsequences will be for failure to

meet the expectations

Responsibility Implies holding a specific office,

duty, or trust

The focus is on what can andshould do; an individuals

personal integrity with respect toa specific task

I-Centered One has a clear duty to perform

an action and take care to carry itout or bring something to fruition

While being responsible always

has other persons in mind, thefocus of meaning is upon theindividuals effort, duty, and

obligation


31/95

31


Accountability Liable to be called to account; answerable

Refers to how the individual will be judgedand thus either rewarded or punished

A person is accountable only when weknow they have to answer to beingpunished

If someone is accountable, it is assumed

a responsible party be able to meet thedemands of the higher authority to whomthey will give their accounting

Accountability focuses for the most partupon all of the elements of duty after thedecision is made

When accountable one is duty boundexternally or one imposes a muchstronger duty upon themselves to answerto any actions which may cause harm ordamage to those they are accountable for

Responsibility We call someone responsible when

we judge the persons motives,intentions, and carefulness withrespect to the task

We can be responsible without beingheld accountable to anyone inparticular

Responsibility focuses for the mostpart upon all the elements of duty upto the point of decision

The major difference is the certaintyor strength of implied/suggested duty

When responsible one may be asked

or take it upon themselves to bemorally responsible for the actionsthey take, for themselves, or others


32/95

32


Accountability

Accountability: "Ill pay a price if Idont do it right."

Required to explain or justify all ofthe reasons for ones actions

Accepting personal liability for

ones actions, accepting onesactions and the consequences

When we know that we must answerwith respect to how well weaccomplished the task and whatreward or punishment was meted outfor failing at the task

Responsibility

Responsibility: "Ill do it. A sense of obligation,

commitment, etc.

Includes exercising ones

judgments with regard to the

powers and authority of discretionone has


33/95

33

The Social Nature of Responsibility Moral responsibility is assigned with the understanding that the

moral agent who has voluntarily chosen and acted is the product ofnumerous social institutions (family, community, professionalsociety, etc.) and all the subsequent societal influences that moldand individual into what they will become

The assignment of moral responsibility can be understood as asocial practice that serves the crucial function of calling the agentsattention to her or his effects on the world as well as the individuals

relationships and obligations to other persons in the world The assignment of responsibility is related to the development of an

attitude of care and concern for ones effects, relationships andduties

The assignment of responsibility and the processes of being heldaccountable for your (voluntary) actions is part of a ingenious

practice of social control by which the community furthers itscommon ends and interests (Smiley, 1992: 238-254)

Smiley, Marion (1992) Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries ofCommunity Chicago: University of Chicago Press


34/95

34

The Social Nature of Responsibility

Moral responsibility is the basis for praise or blame, reward or

punishment, fame or infamy These mechanisms are essential ways in which communities mayeffect personal change in their members toward behavior that ismore in line with collective (social, cultural) ends and values

Example: Judgments of praise and blame, when internalized, createsocial emotions such as guilt, shame, regret, remorse, pride, etcinour responseto how we interacted with and treated othersthatcontribute to the development of conscience (Gaylin and Jennings,1996: 137-49)

Praise and Blame form part of the organization of social adaptationwhich operates through the assignment of responsibility and ofholding people accountable for their actions and attitudes

Moral Responsibility becomes an aspect of our social practice ofblaming (Smiley: 252)


35/95

35

The Social Nature of Responsibility This works in the pluralistic liberal democracy of the USA

by a tacit agreement between members of this largecommunity (country)

It is agreed that individuals are free to choose a way oflife free of coercion or constraints provided thatindividuals realize that these free choices are subject to

judgment and criticism by others in the community if anindividual is judged to have crossed the line

Principle of Liberalism I am free to do whatever Iplease as long as in pursuing my ends I do not inhibitanother persons right to do whatever they please

Moral Responsibility in this first sense is mainly anassignment of accountability by the communal will (anexternal judgment) which, in turn, reserves the right toconstrain anothers actions so that they are in accordwith the values of the community


36/95

36

Moral Responsibility as a Virtue

Moral responsibility in the second sense it is a virtue Moral responsibility as a virtue requires

the acceptance and internalization of moral accountability(responsibility in the first sense)

with the addition of care and concern for oneself and for otherpeople

The disposition to deliberate, decide, and then take action in waysthat ones respected community can judge to be morally worthy ofrightness and praise Acting in this way one really embodies thevirtue of moral responsibility

The Virtue of Moral Responsibility A cognitive element the process of rational deliberation about what

to do in connection with all the relationships and obligations whicharise is a social network

An affective (emotional) element expressed in the genuine careand concern for how an individual responds to their world, in theirthoughts and actions and their effects on others, as well as towardsthe community as a whole


37/95

37

Moral Responsibility as a Virtue The Virtue of Moral Responsibility

Starts to develop once a person has internalized the acceptanceto be held accountable for his or her own free and autonomouschoices and actions

One then develops a genuine concern about the consequencesof ones actions and how ones actions will or will not measureup to the societal norms tacitly agreed upon by the individualwhen they entered the community they belong to

A person could, for instance, take complete responsibility fortheir actions but yet not care in what manner their actionsimpacted other people nor the social relationships and bondsthey form with them

Moral Responsibility as a Virtue includes the element of altruismor the genuine care and concern for the well-being of others and

a strong commitment to deliberate and make moral choicesconsistent with the social ethic, acting only on the internalizednorms of the moral community in which one lives and partakes(Nussbaum, 19XX; Card, 1996). Claudia Card

Social Responsibility is also considered a Virtue by someresearchers (Etzioni, 1993: 11; May 1992)


38/95

38

CULPABLE IGNORANCE

Culpable ignorance when one fails to knowsomething that they should have known

Culpable ignorance an individual rejects oravoids knowledge they should be aware of. Thiscan result from laziness, incompetence, orintention

Culpable Ignorance can be either direct orindirect Direct voluntary ignorance is when one decides to not

know it is done deliberately Indirect voluntary ignorance is when one could/should

have known but remained in ignorance it was donewithout due diligence

Due diligence taking care to make sure youlearn something that you should know


39/95

39

CULPABLE IGNORANCE

Culpableignoranceis a case where ignorance of the

facts surrounding a situation does not diminish theresponsibility of the moral agentfor unwanted or immoraloutcomes of an action.

This is usually because some degree of due diligence orreasonable care has not been taken by the agent in

question. Due diligence means that the agent in question failed to

do know something that they could be reasonablyexpected to know and this led to the performance of theimmoral act.

For example, a doctor kills a patient by administering penicillin toa patient that is allergic. The doctor was unaware of the allergybecause they had failed to investigate the patients history.

Epistemic responsibility Epistemic conditions on moral responsibility


40/95

40

CULPABLE IGNORANCE Culpable ignorance is a case where ignorance of the

facts surrounding a situation does not diminish theresponsibility of the moral agent for unwanted or immoraloutcomes of an action.

Even though the agent acted in good faith at the time,we say that they should have known better or theyshould have realised what they were doing and so theyare still blameworthy for the immoral outcomes of theiraction, even though these outcomes were not intended.

It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up ifthe person used sufficient diligence.

You were capable of knowing something, and youshould have taken pains to come to know it.

One is said to be culpably ignorant if one fails to makeenough effort to learn what should be known; guilt thendepends on one's lack of effort to clear up the ignorance


41/95

41

Culpable Ignorance

What is the difference between culpable and non-

culpable ignorance? The criterion for determining culpable ignorance, is if

harm is likely to result and the agent could have foundout about the likely circumstances of the action

We should be expected to know in general what kinds ofeffects will result from familiar types of actions, even ifwe cant predict the exact details

For example, there is an historical record of human-made disasters, and the causes of them can be

determined and understood by identifying generalcategories of belief and action, as well as design andtechnical breakdown of engineered systems

The SHOT model is an example of this


42/95

42

Culpable Ignorance

Some things are unpredictable in detail, but are familiarenough that one would be culpable not to expect them ifthey fit into our categorical scheme SHOT

Those who perform actions that have potentially

disastrous consequences can be morally culpable evenif they cannot foresee the specific consequences

They are culpable because experience has shown thatone should expect certain kinds of events

In general, we have an ethical duty to find out what thelikely effects of our actions are


43/95

43

Culpable Ignorance

In considering culpable ignorance, typically oneis concerned with ignorance of fact.

But there is also another type of culpableignorance called ignorance of moral principle.One can fail to know what one ought to do in aparticular case. One can fail to know some general moral rule.

One can fail to know that people have certain rights;or that one has certain responsibilities

An omission may be culpable on account ofsome special position of role or otherresponsibility held by the agent


44/95

44

Moral Accountability and Excusing ConditionsWhen someone is the cause of some wrongdoing, they are not

automatically considered responsible and hence accountable. The

law and ethics recognizes certain, valid excusing conditions

Ignorance Excuse

Is it possible to know? Could we, or should we have known?

Would a reasonable person considered the possibility? If not: excusable ignorance If impossible for us to know: invincible ignorance

Lack of Freedom Excuse Four conditions:

No alternatives: not even lack of action Lack of control: External coercion: force

Internal coercion: Illness, passion, uncontrollable psychologicalcompulsion, etc.


45/95

45

Theory of Negligence

Negligence has come to define the expectedstandard of conduct replacing, for some people,ideas of honor, propriety, and simple right andwrong

No case of actionable negligence will ariseunless the duty to be careful exists A person is considered negligent or careless if

they do not exercise the kind of due care that isappropriate to the particular situation in question

Negligent omission: failing to act when theperson has a duty to act


46/95

46

Negligence The law of negligence imposes a duty to think before you act. The ordinary care standard imposes a social standard which is judged by

members of the community who may or may not agree with your evaluationof your own conduct.

Therefore, it is important to look at your acts and omissions from the standpoint of others in the community who will be judging your conduct.

If you have negligence concerns, ask:

1. What would members of the community require me to do under thesecircumstances; 2. What would members of the community forbid me to do under these

circumstances; 3. What would members of my profession/vocation/calling require of me

under these circumstances; 4. What would members of my profession/vocation/calling counsel me to

avoid under these circumstances; 5. What are the risks of my conduct, considering the probability of harm and

the degree of injury or damage that would result if an accident occurred;and

6. Would ordinary people in the community believe that I am takingreasonable risks?


47/95

47

Proving Negligence

Negligence is 'conduct which falls below thestandard established by law for the protection ofothers against unreasonable risk of harm' [4].

In order to establish liability for damage, thecourts analyze the following four elements:

duty

breach

proximate cause

damages.


48/95

48

Proving Negligence

Negligence: the injured party (plaintiff) must prove: a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the

injured party-specifically to the one injured or to thegeneral public,

b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) wasnegligent-not what a reasonably prudent person wouldhave done because it did not fulfill the standard of caretypical of how any similar engineer would judge and actin similar situations

c) that the damages were caused ("proximately caused")

by the negligence. d) That the damages were "reasonably foreseeable" at

the time of the alleged negligence.


49/95

49

Standard of Care

In legal cases, a judge or jury, has to determinewhat the standard of care is and whether anengineer has failed to achieve that level ofperformance.

They do so by hearing expert testimony. People who are qualified as experts express

opinions as to the standard of care and as to thedefendant engineer's performance relative tothat standard.

The testimony from all sides is weighted andthen a decision is made what the standard ofcare was and whether the defendant met it

S C


50/95

50

Standard of Care Jury instructions have been standardized. A Bench

Approved Jury Instruction (BAJI, 1986) reads:

"In performing professional services for a client, a(structural engineer) has the duty to have that degree oflearning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable(structural engineers), practicing in the same or similarlocality and under similar circumstances.

It is (the structural engineer's) further duty to use thecare and skill ordinarily used in like cases by reputablemembers of the (structural engineering) professionpracticing in the same or similar locality under similarcircumstances, and to use reasonable diligence and (the

structural engineer's) best judgment in the exercise ofprofessional skill and in the application of learning, in aneffort to accomplish the purpose for which (the structuralengineer) was employed.

A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence"


51/95

51

Standard of CareThree key items in this instruction bear repeating:

1. ...have learning and skill ordinarily possessed byreputable engineers practicing in the same or similarlocality and under similar circumstances.

2. ...use care and skill ordinarily possessed by reputableengineers practicing in the same or similar locality andunder similar circumstances.

3. ...use reasonable diligence and best judgment toaccomplish the purpose for which the engineer was

employed. If any one of these conditions is not met, the engineer

has failed to meet the standard of care, and isprofessionally negligent.

C ti N li


52/95

52

Comparative Negligence Negligence involving joint tortfeasors

Joint Tortfeasors (wrongdoers): two or more persons whosenegligence in a single accident or event causes damages to another

person. In many cases the joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for

the damages, meaning that any of them can be responsible to paythe entire amount, no matter how unequal the negligence of eachparty was.

Example: Harry Hotrod is doing 90 miles an hour along a two-lane

road in the early evening, Adele Aimster has stopped her car to study a map with her car

sticking out into the lane by six inches.

Hotrod swings out a couple of feet to miss Aimster's vehicle, nevertouches the brake, and hits Victor Victim, driving from the otherdirection, killing him.

While Hotrod is grossly negligent for the high speed and failure toslow down, Aimster is also negligent for her car's slight intrusion intothe lane. As a joint tortfeasor she may have to pay all the damages,particularly if Hotrod has no money or insurance.

However, comparative negligence rules by statute or case law inmost jurisdictions will apportion the liability by percentages of

negligence among the tortfeasors and the injured parties.


53/95

53

Res Ipsa Loquitur(The Thing Speaks for Itself)

(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," A doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she had

exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there isno specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligencethe accident would not have happened.

Examples: a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being

constructed by High-rise Construction Co. falls and injures PaulPedestrian below

High-rise is liable for Pedestrian's injury even though no one sawthe load fall.

b) While under anesthetic, Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm isdamaged although it was not part of the surgical procedure, and she

is unaware of which of a dozen medical people in the room causedthe damage.

Under res ipsa loquitur all those connected with the operation areliable for negligence.

Lawyers often shorten the doctrine to "res ips," and find it a handyshorthand for a complex doctrine.


54/95

54

Negligence Per Se

Negligence due to the violation of a public duty, such ashigh speed driving.

In Blacks Law Dictionary negligence per se is definedas: Conduct, whether of action or omission, which maybe declared and treated as negligence without any

argument or proof as to the particular surroundingcircumstances, either because it is in violation of astatute or valid municipal ordinance, or because it is sopalpably opposed to the dictates of common prudencethat it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no

careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule, the violation of a public duty, enjoinedby law for the protection of person or property, soconstitutes."


55/95

55

Recklessness

Recklessness: An injury caused by conduct that is morethan mere carelessness but less than actual intent tocause harm

Recklessness: Carelessness in reckless disregard for

the safety of the lives of others. It is more than simpleinadvertence but it is less than being consciously intenton causing harm

Gross negligence is another way of saying recklessness

Culpable negligence: a degree of carelessness greater

than simple negligence. It is a negligent act or omissionaccompanied by a culpable disregard for the foreseeableconsequences of that act or omission


56/95

56

Intention

Intend: To fix the mind upon (something tobe accomplished); to be intent upon; tomean; to design; to plan; to purpose

Intend: have in mind as a purpose; todesign for a specific purpose.

Intend: to act with purpose; mean; design;

plan; conceive; contemplate.

Intentionality: expressive of intentions


57/95

57

Barriers to Responsibility and Accountability

1. The Social Psychology of Identification ofOnes Role in Social Interaction (The

Zimbardo Experiment)

2. Obedience to Authority in SocialContexts (The Milgram Experiment)

3. The Problem of Many Hands

4. Diffusion of Responsibility

5. Risky Shift Phenomena

I d i Zi b d E i


58/95

58

Introduction: Zimbardo Experiment

Why do human beings, even seemingly normal people, sometimes

commit despicable acts? One answer points to individual dispositions; another answeremphasizes situational pressures.

For example, In 2005, Secretary of State Condoleezza Ricestressed the importance of individual dispositions in describingterrorists as "simply evil people who want to kill."

The Theory of Situational Context (TSC) rejects this view. It hypothesizes that horrible acts can be committed by perfectly

normal people. The TSC view has received strong support from some of the most

famous experiments in social science, conducted by thepsychologist Stanley Milgram in the early 1960s. (See below: The

Milgram Experiment slides) The TSC view has also received strong support from anotherfamous experiment in social psychology: The ZimbardoExperiment


59/95

59

Role Responsibility and The Zimbardo Experiment

To study the roles people play in prison situations,

Zimbardo converted a basement of the Stanford Universitypsychology building into a mock prison.They advertised for students to play the roles of prisonersand guards for a two-week period.Zimbardo selected the 21 applicants who seemed thehealthiest, maturest and most 'normal'. At random 11 were

assigned the role of 'guards', 10 the role of 'prisoners'.The guards were given an official-looking uniform; theprisoners something like a prison uniform and toothbrush,towels and bed linen. No personal belongings were allowedin the cells.

Zimbardo and the guards worked out a set of rules whichprisoners were expected to memorize and follow.Prisoners were required to work to earn their $15 per dayand were allowed prisoners twice per weekGuards were allowed to give certain rewards for good

behavior.


60/95

60

On the first day, the 'count' of the prisoners (carried out three times per day)took ten minutes.By the second day, the 'count' time had increased as the guards started to useit to harass the prisoners and by the fifth day the 'count' occupied several hoursas the guards berated the prisoners for minor infractions of the rules.The prisoners carried out a real insurrection, which was put down quickly bythe guards.

The guards then proceeded to punish the prisoners for their disobedience andprotestInstead of protesting, some of the prisoners began to act in depressed,dependent ways, just like many real prisoners and inmates of institutions.They deteriorated into learned helplessness, becoming ever more subdued anddepressed, and acting zombie-like

The more they acted in that way, the more they were mistreated.The behavior of the guards was one of growing cruelty, aggression anddehumanizationThey stripped the prisoners hooded them, chained them, denied them foodor bedding privileges, put them into solitary confinement, and made them cleantoilet bowels with their bare hands

Role Responsibility and The Zimbardo Experiment


61/95

61

Zimbardo Experiment

By the end of the sixth day, the situation had deteriorated to such anextent, with guards inventing new rules to make the prison regimemore punitive, that Zimbardo called a halt to the experiment.

Zimbardo said in his book that the mock prison had to be shut downbecause "the ugliest, most base, pathological side of human naturesurfaced.

The important question for ethics becomes: What caused it tosurface?

Was it simply deep down inside of each individual?

Or, did the particular situation that they were put into cause themto act like they did?

The analysis of the results showed that the subjects simply 'became'the roles they played. More than a third of the guards behaved insuch a hostile manner consistently, that Zimbardo described theirbehavior as sadistic.

This was despite the fact that the roles were assigned at randomand there was absolutely no prior evidence that any of the subjectswas inclined to behave as they did.


62/95

Obedience to Authority A Barrier to Responsibility


63/95

63

Obedience to Authority A Barrier to Responsibility

Milgram experiment (late 1960s Yale University)

In the experiment ordinary men and women were brought in to

participate in what they were told was a study of memory. When they arrived at the laboratory they were told that they wereto play the role of teacher.They had to read a series of word pairs to another person on theother side of a partition.In the experiment, so-called "teachers" (who were actually the

unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited by Milgram.They were asked administer an electric shock of increasing intensityto a"learner" for each mistake he made during the experiment.The fictitious story given to these "teachers" was that theexperiment was exploring effects of punishment (for incorrectresponses) on learning behavior.The "teacher" was not aware that the "learner" in the study wasactually a compatriot of Milgrams - - merely feigning discomfort asthe "teacher" increased the electric shocks.

Mil i


64/95

64

Milgram experiment When the "teacher" asked whether increased shocks

should be given he/she was verbally encouraged tocontinue. Sixty percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish

the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts!

At times, the worried "teachers" questioned theexperimenter, askingwho was responsible for any harmful effects resultingfrom shocking the earner at such a high level.

Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter

assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to acceptthe response and continue shocking, even though somewere obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so.

The study raised many questions about how the subjectscould bring themselves to administer such heavy shocks.


65/95

65

Milgram experiment

The apparent shocks were delivered by a simulated shockgenerator, offering thirty clearly delineated voltage levels, rangingfrom 15 to 450 volts, accompanied by verbal descriptions rangingfrom "Slight Shock" to "XXX."

As the experiment unfolded, the subject was asked to administerincreasingly severe shocks for incorrect answers, well past the

"Danger, Severe Shock" level, which began at 375 volts. The mechanism for administering the shocks had 30 levels or

settings raging from 15 to 450 volts, so that the maximum numberof shocks that could be given was 30. Milgram devised a set of fourprods that the experimenter gave to subjects who asked whetherthey should continue to administer shocks (Milgram, 1974:21):

1. please continue,2. the experiment requires you to continue,3. it is absolutely essential that you continue, and4. you have no other choice, you mustgo on.

These prods were made in sequence and if the subject refused toobey after prod 4, the experiment was terminated.


66/95

66


67/95

67

Milgram experiment

The expected break-off point is the "Very Strong Shock"of 195 volts. In Milgram's experiment, however, everyone of the forty subjects went beyond 300 volts.

A large majority--twenty-six of the forty subjects, or 65

percent--went to the full 450-volt shock, five stepsbeyond "Danger, Severe Shock."

Replications of Milgram's experiments, with thousands ofdiverse people in numerous countries, show essentiallythe same behavior.

And women do not behave differently from men. Milgram concluded that ordinary people will follow orders

even if the result is to produce great suffering in innocentothers.

Obedience to Authority Studies


68/95

68

The Surveillance Effect

There is clear evidence from Milgram's study that the presence of theexperimenter helped to increase obedience. When he left the room,obedience dropped from 65% to 21%. The same thing happens inclassrooms, offices and factory floors as well.

The Buffer Effect

The buffer in the Milgram experiment was the wall between teacherand learner. Milgram showed that if the teacher was personally requiredto hold the learners hand on the shock plate, then obedience droppedfrom 65% to 40%.

It seemed that the more direct the interaction between the teacherand the learner, the lower the obedience would be.Milgram tested this theory in reverse by conducting an experimentwhere the teacher was required to pull a lever which would causeanother person to administer the shocks.In this case the obedience level went up from 65% to 93%.

Obedience to Authority Studies

Milgram experiment


69/95

69

Milgram and Zimbardo Experiments and Ethics

Both the Zimbardo and Milgram experiments shed lighton the situational affects on a human psyche

It sheds light on the philosophical debate over the natureof responsibility and accountability:

Are only individuals totally responsible for their actions orcould their environment or situation be implicated incausing their behavior?

"How do average even admirable people becomedehumanized by the critical circumstances pressing inon them?" asked the famous philosopher HannahArendt in her book about the Nuremburg Trials, The

Banality of Evil. This is what she called the phenomenabecause the German officers who committed atrociousacts were no more evil than any other person in theirinner character

What, is blind obedience?


70/95

70

Milgram and Zimbardo Experiments and Ethics

. In his book, Obedience to Authority, Milgramconcludes that "A substantial proportion ofpeople do what they are told to do, irrespectiveof the content of the act and without limitations

of conscience, so long as they perceive that thecommand comes from a legitimate authority." But, what constitutes legitimate authority is the

crucial question. "What encourages obedience?

Is it fear of punishment or negative repercussions? A desire to please? A need to go along with the group? A blind faith in authority?"


71/95

71

Situationism and Professional Contexts

In a typical workplace, employers are the authority

figures and employees are subordinates to them This relationship of superior to subordinate can lead to

abuses.

For one thing the employer holds your job, your

paycheck, and your livelihood over your head, so tospeak

If they threaten to deprive you of any or all of these if youfail to do as you are told, what should you do?

Can you be excused from being responsible oraccountable for your actions because your bosscoerced you to do things you thought were wrong?

The Problem of Many Hands


72/95

72

A Barrier to Accountability

Because so many people contribute in so many differentways, it is very difficult to determine who is accountablefor organizational behavior.

It can often be extremely difficult to determine anindividual's contribution to failures in large organizationsor large engineering projects where many peopleparticipate and add their particular skills or expertise (infact, the same goes for successes).

The case studies you will analyze in this course begin tosuggest some of the ethical implications that ensue fromthe diffusion of responsibility in engineering ethics

contexts, particularly in the design and operation ofcomplex technological artifacts and systems.



73/95

73

The Problem of Many Hands A Barrier to Accountability

One philosopher notes that "With respect to complex organizations,the problem of many hands often turns the quest for responsibilityinto a quest for the Holy Grail

Bovins, B. (1998). The quest for Responsibility: Accountability andCitizenship in Complex Organizations. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.

In many cases we simply cannot isolate individual contributions toorganizational action. This suggests not only that we lack some ofthe basic incentives that could be used to increase individual effortin pursuit of quality, but that the ability to achieve justice inorganizations is compromised.

Research on decision making shows that some layers of the

organizational hierarchy are responsible for decisions that are morevisible, concrete, limited in time, and identifiable with specificindividuals than are others



74/95

74


It is quite natural to assume that when mistakes are committed, we can associate itwith the particular decision behind it If this decision leads to adverse consequences, it is assumed that the decision maker

is at fault This is an unwarranted assumption, as legal scholars well know. People at the top and bottom of organizations tend not to be blamed when accidents

happen

Braithewaite, J. (1998) The allocation of responsibility for corporate crime: Individualism,collectivism, and accountability, Sidney Law Review 12: 468-513.

The focus is usually on the managers in the middle because, although they exhibitenough seniority to make important and visible decisions, they are not senior enoughto be able to hide behind the diffusion of responsibility that provides top managementcover

Empirical research confirms this: Decision making at the operational level tends to behighly visible and are marked by clearly defined beginning, middle, and end states

Top management decisions are more fluid, evolutionary, consensual, and temporal,where negations are carried on with numerous individuals and groups over a periodof time


75/95


76/95

76

The Diffusion of Responsibility Phenomenon

The Genovese Effect

Kitty Genovese Murder NY, NY 1964

Fought off murderer he returned again and again

Rape and murder took full half hour

No one came to her assistance

Police determined that at least 38 neighbors wereaware of the attack

Unresponsive Bystander Effect


77/95

77

Diffusion of Responsibility

The tendency for persons in a group situation to fail to take actionbecause others are present, thus diffusing the responsibility foracting. A major factor in inhibiting bystanders from intervening inemergencies

People are much more likely to intervene if they are alone ratherthan in the presence of others, especially if the other is a stranger

Experiment: Reasoned that the presence of a stranger weakenedindividual responses by diffusing their sense of responsibility Finding: If individuals have their efforts identified when they are part

of a cohesive highly moral group, they will exert even more effortthan they would if they were only working for their own personalbenefit

Finding: If the roles and responsibilities of team members are notclearly identified, individuals will tend to loaf and they will notproduce their best effort


78/95

78

The greater the number of observers of wrongdoing, the less likely that any of

them will feel morally responsible for acting to prevent the wrongdoingWhen individuals know that many others are present, then they as individuals

will not bear the full burden of responsibility

Hypothesis: humans are certainly capable of self-interested behavior (in this

case, lying back and let others do the work, but we are also capable of showing

team spirit depending on slight but important modification to the situationalconditions

Crucial variable: the extent to which our contribution is visible to the rest of the

team

Moral Approbation plays a role here



79/95

79


Tested Hypotheses Predicted that group members would feel less

personally responsible than individuals and that thedecrease in felt responsibility would be proportional to

the size of the group

Predicted that the valence of the groups outcome

would influence diffusion, such that members ofsuccessful groups would be less likely to diffuse

responsibility in comparison to members of failuregroups

Both hypotheses were confirmed in major research


80/95

80


Individuals may fail to act as whistleblowers becausethey fear the consequences but also because they mayexpect someone else will take the appropriate steps toprevent a major problem

The idea that If I dont do it somebody else will shiftsresponsibility from the individual onto some unspecifiedOther

The sociological literature suggests that the more onesactions becomes disentangled from the organization in

which they are embedded, the better able one toencourage their maximum contribution to the group,including alerting others when things are starting to gowrong


81/95

B i I di id l A bili


82/95

82

Barriers to Individual Accountability

1. Self-Interest

2. Fear

3. Self-Deception

4. Ignorance5. Egocentrism

6. Narrowness of Vision

7. Uncritical Acceptance of Authority8. Groupthink


83/95

83

The Mens ReaDoctrine

To seek individual liability in natural persons

The theory of fault based on the notion of free will, focused on humanpsychological processes

Punishment: based on certain conscious, intentional psychologicallyinstantiated blameworthy choices made by a guilty mind

Centrality of Mens Rea Doctrine. Take for example:

Jones is presently depraved. She lacks the capacity for moral reflection and self-

control. In a fit of rage she assaults a stranger for no good reason. Now

consider two versions of the case.

(a) Jones is blamelessly depraved due to an acute psychosis that it was never in

her power to predict or prevent.

(b) Jones has deliberately ingested a depravity-inducing drug because shes ablocked novelist who wants to know how it feels to lose control.

Jones is culpable for the assault in the second case but not the first.

Responsibility


84/95

84

SuretyshipMastershipHierarchyAuthorization

Individual

Vicarious Liability

Whole Groups

CollectiveAnd

Non Distributive

CollectiveAnd

Distributive

Liability with

ContributoryGuilt

Liability with

Non-ContributoryGuilt

Collective

Strict Liability

Direct(Causal) Fault

CriminalIn TortContracts(ContractsWarranties

(UltraHazardous

Materials)

(Public WelfareMilk, Water)

(Bond AgencyMessengerService)

(CorporationsMilitarySchools)

(Employer-Employee)

(Bonded Employee)

(Athletic teamsNazis-JewsWhites-Blacks)

(ConspiracyComplicity) Train Robbery

(Good Samaritan)


85/95

C ll ti R ibilit


86/95

86

Collective Responsibility

Collective responsibility, like personal responsibility, refers toboth the causal responsibility of moral agents for causingharm

And the blameworthiness that we ascribe to them for havingcaused such harm

It is always a notion of moral rather than purely causalresponsibility It does not locate associate either causal responsibility or

blameworthiness with discrete individuals or locate the sourceof moral responsibility in the free will of the individual moralagents

Instead, it associates both causal and moral responsibilitywith groups and locates the source of moral responsibility inthe collective actions taken by these groups understood ascollectives

Related to notions of group intentions, collective actions, andgroup blameworthiness

C ll ti R ibilit


87/95

87

Collective Responsibility

Ascriptions of Responsibility for wrong doing to groups orlarge organizations

Arguments Against:

1. Organizations are not personsunlike individuals,they cannot form intentions and hence cannot beunderstood to act or to cause harm asa group.

2. Organizations as distinct from their individualmembers, cannot be understood as morallyblameworthy in the sense required by moralresponsibility.

Th i f C ll ti R ibilit


88/95

88

Theories of Collective ResponsibilityArguments For:

1. Organizational Decision Procedure2. Organizational Climate/Organizational Culture

3. A collective actionis caused by thebeliefs and desires (wants) of the

collective itself, whether or not suchbeliefs and desires can be accounted foror explained in individualistic terms

4. Group intentions exist when two or more persons constitute theplural subject of an intention to carry out a particular action, or, inother words, when they are jointly committed to intending as abody to pursue a collectively-held goal or objective

1. A team is jointly committed and jointly intends to carry out a play

C ll ti I t ti lit


89/95

89

Collective Intentionality

1. Collective intentionality -- Groups exhibit joint commitments to actas a single body1. Example: codes of professional ethics

2. mind-sets or cognitive schema unique to a group ororganization E.g., engineers think differently than managers

3. We have a practice of attributing responsibility to organizations

(consider, for instance, current tobacco lawsuits) and this seemsto presuppose that organizations literallyhave intentional states.For we could not hold them legally and morally responsible for anaction unless they intendedto commit the act.

4. Groupthink as a possible example

5. Risky shift as a possible example

Th i f C ll ti R ibilit


90/95

90

Theories of Collective Responsibility

Two conditions of Collective Moral Agency:

Free Action: We must be able to claim that acollective performed an action such that the actioncited cannot be reduced to the action of any given

individual within the collective. (e.g.,representational government)

Knowledge: We must be able to say in some sense

that the collective knew the consequences of theaction, or should have known of theseconsequences, so as to support the claim that itsaction is intentional.


91/95

Th f C ll ti R ibilit


92/95

92

Theory of Collective Responsibility

Collective Responsibility can belocated in the CID

(Corporate Internal Decision Structure)

Organizational Flow Chart Recognition Rules Procedural Rules Nonprocedural Rules

The development and implementation of complextechnological systems requires coordinatino of many

individuals contributions

The system or plan of coordination is responsible for theoutcome in a way which no individual moral agentcontributor is responsible

Collective Responsibility of


93/95

93

p yProfessions and Professionals

A profession is a chosen form of life withall its attendant value systems, powers,benefits, and responsibilities

Role of Licensure

Responsibility for Technology


94/95

94

Responsibility for Technology

Individual Responsibility Collective Responsibility

Social Responsibility for Technology

References


95/95

References

Bovins, B. (1998) The Quest for Responsibility, Accountability andCitizenship in Large Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gaylin, Willard and Bruce Jennings (1996) The Perversion of Autonomy:

The Proper Uses of Coercion and Constraints in a Liberal Society NewYork: The Free Press

Latane, B. and R. Rodin (1969) A Lady in Distress: Inhibiting Effects ofFriends and Strangers on Bystander Intervention, Journal of Experimental

Psychology 5: 189-202 Latane , B and K. Williams and S. Harkins (1979) Many hands make light

work: the causes and consequences of social loafing, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology37: 822-32.

Smiley, Marion (1992) Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries ofCommunity: Power and Accountability From a Pragmatic Point of View.University of Chicago Press

Hacking, Ian Culpable Ignorance and Interference Effects in Values atRisk

Documents

Theories of Responsibility Accountability Liability