9. Moral Accountability
Learning Outcomes:
By the end of this module you should be able to:
Determine causal responsibility for the outcome of a decision.
Decide whom should be held morally accountable for their motivations or characters.
Determine if a whole organization can be morally accountable for a decision.
Video Lectures:
9.1 Agency, accountability, and standing (9:47)
An agent is morally accountable for a decision if we should praise or blame the agent for its results. An entity is morally considerable, or has moral standing, if we must consider its interests in our moral decisions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ytvHl8QIJ5c
9.2 Causal responsibility (13:32)
Facts about causal responsibility are not as precise as most facts of science. Some people think causal conditions are necessary conditions, but these “but for” conditions have difficulty with over-determination. Some think they are sufficient conditions, but these have difficulties with situations of joint production that are analogous to Adam Smith’s pin factory. Some think they are NESS conditions, but these have difficulty attributing causal responsibility for committee decisions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LmLZ6p2Fo0U
9.3 Moral and legal accountability (11.54)
The analogy between moral accountability and legal responsibility breaks down in case of vicarious responsibility and deep pockets. Unlike compensation, accountability is not limited in size. Value judgments about moral accountability are more than just facts about causal responsibility. Sometimes moral accountability requires causal responsibility, as in retributive justice, and sometimes it does not as in judgments about character or motive. Different forms of ethical reasoning give different reasons for holding agents morally accountable. These reasons include the decision-maker’s character, motives, duties, special responsibilities, causal role, and the welfare consequences of possible assignments of accountability.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=9fOpelP021c
9.4 Corporate accountability
Some philosophers think that business organizations, such as joint-stock companies, cannot be morally accountable because they do not have mental lives. Corporate accountability reduces without remainder to the accountability of individuals within the organization. Other philosophers think that there are good ethical reasons for holding corporations morally as well as legally responsible for the results of their decisions. For example, we can talk meaningfully of corporate character. Just because the corporation is morally accountable, it does not mean that individuals within the corporation are not also morally accountable for their decisions and actions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nWPR8jyRs74
9.5 Supplementary Lecture: Moral standing (12:44)
Different forms of ethical reasoning give us ethical reasons to consider the interests of different beings. For example, experience utilitarianism gives us ethical reasons to consider the interests of all sentient beings such as humans and animals. The shareholder view of moral standing focuses on only one particular, restricted, ethical consideration, the contractual and promissory relationship between the management and the owners of a firm. The stakeholder view of moral standing considers the interest of all those with whom the firm has explicit or implicit contractual relations. The comprehensive view of moral standing considers all possible ethical relationships between the firm and the rest of the world.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=16e4eJ43Q-g
Case Study 9:
Isabella and Deceptive Sales Practices
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oseHT0ZPmaI