Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Collective Responsibility

Collective responsibility refers to the moral accountability ascribed to groups—such as corporations, nations, or informal collectives—for actions, omissions, or outcomes that warrant reactive attitudes like blame or praise, potentially distinct from the summed responsibilities of individual members.^[1] This attribution presupposes group-level agency, including shared intentions or decision-making structures, though it remains contested whether such agency exists beyond individual contributions.^[1] In ethical theory, it contrasts with individual responsibility by emphasizing collective causation and obligation, yet empirical scrutiny of cases like environmental degradation reveals frequent "responsibility gaps" where no entity fully satisfies criteria for volitional blameworthiness.^[2] The concept encompasses varied forms, including diffuse collectives (lacking unified goals), teleological ones (with shared aims but no formal procedures), and agential groups (possessing decision-making capacities like firms), but principled analysis limits robust moral responsibility to the latter, where joint intentionality enables causal tracing to group choices.^[2]^[1] Proponents argue it addresses systemic harms unattributable to single actors, as in coordinated corporate failures or societal neglect, fostering forward-looking duties for remediation.^[2] However, defining characteristics include persistent debates over reducibility to personal fault, with methodological individualists maintaining that ethical desert requires tracing to autonomous agents' decisions, rendering many collective claims metaphysically untenable or practically unfair to uninvolved parties.^[1] Controversies arise from applications in domains like climate policy or historical redress, where invocations of collective guilt often encounter causal over-determination—multiple contributors without decisive difference-makers—or justification deficits, such as absent group-level duties proportionate to harms.^[2] These gaps highlight tensions with fairness principles, as non-participants bear diffused sanctions without personal agency, prompting critiques that the doctrine can obscure individual incentives and enable ideological manipulations rather than rigorous causal accountability.^[1] Despite such challenges, structured entities like corporations demonstrate viable instances through liability frameworks that align group intentions with enforceable outcomes, underscoring the need for empirical validation over intuitive attributions.^[2]

Definition and Core Concepts

Defining Collective Responsibility

Collective responsibility refers to the moral or legal accountability attributed to a group entity, such as an organization, nation, or community, for harms, benefits, or obligations arising from the group's actions, intentions, or omissions, where this accountability is not entirely reducible to the summed responsibilities of individual members.^[1] This concept presupposes the existence of collective agency, whereby a group can form intentions and perform actions through coordinated or structured member behaviors, as opposed to mere aggregation of independent individual acts.^[3] For instance, a corporation may bear responsibility for environmental damage caused by its policies, even if no single executive intended the full scope of harm, because the entity's decision-making processes causally contributed to the outcome.^[2] Philosophers distinguish collective responsibility by requiring that groups meet standard conditions of moral responsibility adapted to collective contexts: an epistemic condition (awareness of relevant facts), a control condition (ability to influence outcomes), and a normative condition (justified norms guiding evaluation).^[3] In Larry May's framework, this often involves "collective inaction" or shared harms in unstructured groups, where dispersed individual failures aggregate into group-level culpability without requiring joint intentionality.^[1] Empirical applications appear in legal contexts, such as corporate liability under U.S. law, where entities like ExxonMobil have been held accountable for deceptive practices on climate change, fined $20 million in a 2023 settlement for misleading investors despite distributed executive roles. Critics, however, contend that true collective responsibility demands demonstrable group-level causation, rejecting attributions to loosely affiliated groups lacking enforceable mechanisms, as unsubstantiated claims risk diluting individual agency.^[4] Prospective forms emphasize forward-looking duties, such as a society's obligation to rectify systemic inequalities stemming from historical policies, while retrospective forms focus on blame for past collective harms, like post-apartheid South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission attributing national responsibility for atrocities to the apartheid regime as a structured entity.^[5] Verification requires tracing causal pathways from group structures to outcomes, privileging evidence from institutional records over anecdotal narratives, as academic analyses biased toward expansive group blame—often prevalent in certain interdisciplinary fields—may overstate applicability without rigorous disaggregation of member contributions.^[6]

Distinctions from Individual and Shared Responsibility

Collective responsibility attributes moral or causal accountability to a group as an entity, distinct from the personal agency of its members, whereas individual responsibility is confined to a single person's voluntary actions, intentions, and foreseeable consequences. For instance, individual responsibility demands that the agent possess the capacity for rational choice and control over the outcome, as articulated in philosophical analyses emphasizing personal culpability rooted in autonomy and foresight. In contrast, collective responsibility often invokes group-level mechanisms, such as organizational decisions or emergent properties of interactions, where no single member may bear full personal fault yet the collective is deemed liable. This distinction underscores methodological individualism's critique that genuine moral agency resides only in individuals, rendering group attributions derivative or illusory unless reducible to personal actions.^[7] Shared responsibility, alternatively known as distributed or joint responsibility, allocates accountability among multiple agents based on their respective contributions to an outcome, preserving individual moral assessment within the group context. Each participant remains responsible for their specific role or omission, as in cases of collaborative failures where blame is apportioned proportionally— for example, team members in a corporate scandal each facing liability for their verifiable inputs.^[8] Collective responsibility diverges by potentially treating the group as a supraindividual agent with irreducible intentions or liabilities that do not fully distribute to members; here, the entity itself may incur sanctions, such as institutional penalties, without equivalent personal repercussions for all involved.^[9] Empirical studies on group dynamics, including diffusion of responsibility in bystander interventions, illustrate how shared setups maintain individual traceability, while collective frameworks risk obscuring it, complicating causal attribution to specific actors.^[10] These distinctions highlight tensions in applying responsibility concepts: shared models align with causal realism by tracing effects to identifiable individual causes, whereas collective approaches may extend liability via membership or solidarity, raising questions of fairness absent direct personal involvement. Philosophers distinguish corporate responsibility (group as legal-moral agent, e.g., a firm's board decisions) from shared (sum of individual duties) to avoid conflating organizational outcomes with personal ethics.^[11] Critics argue that overemphasizing collective over individual or shared variants erodes incentives for personal accountability, as evidenced in analyses of historical attributions like national war guilt, where group labels can mask varying degrees of individual complicity.^[12]

Historical Origins and Evolution

Pre-Modern Perspectives in Philosophy and Religion

In ancient Greek philosophy, Plato's Republic (c. 375 BCE) presents the ideal city-state (polis) as an organic whole where justice requires the collective harmony of its parts, with guardians and rulers collectively responsible for educating citizens in virtue to prevent societal discord. The city's moral order depends on shared guardianship over the common good, as individual souls mirror the state's structure, implying group-level accountability for ethical failures like tyranny or factionalism.^[13] Aristotle, in Politics (c. 350 BCE), extends this by arguing that the polis is natural and prior to the individual, existing to enable the good life through collective institutions; laws and constitutions bear responsibility for fostering civic virtue, as flawed regimes produce corrupt citizens en masse, linking communal governance to shared moral outcomes.^[14] In Judaism, collective responsibility emerges in biblical and Talmudic texts, such as Leviticus 26:37, interpreted in the Babylonian Talmud (Shevuot 39a, c. 500 CE) as establishing kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh—"all Israel are guarantors for one another"—meaning Jews share vicarious liability for each other's adherence to commandments, including atonement for communal sins through collective repentance or sacrifice. This principle underscores mutual surety for spiritual welfare, as seen in cases like the community's role in addressing individual idolatry, reflecting a covenantal bond where group fidelity to Torah incurs joint blessings or curses.^[15] Christian theology formalized collective responsibility through Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of original sin, articulated in De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione (412 CE) and drawing on Romans 5:12, whereby Adam's transgression imputes guilt to all descendants via natural propagation, rendering humanity corporately culpable and prone to sin apart from grace. This inherited stain demands collective redemption, as the entire race participates in the fall's consequences, influencing medieval views on communal penance and the Church's role in mediating shared culpability.^[16]^[17]

Modern Developments from Enlightenment to 20th Century

The Enlightenment era, spanning roughly the late 17th to late 18th centuries, prioritized individual reason and autonomy over pre-modern communal ties, with philosophers like John Locke arguing in Two Treatises of Government (1689) that political authority arises from individuals' consent to protect natural rights to life, liberty, and property, thereby establishing limited collective obligations grounded in mutual self-interest rather than inherent group culpability. This framework shifted moral responsibility toward personal agency, viewing society as an aggregate of rational actors entering contracts to avoid anarchy, as Thomas Hobbes had outlined in Leviathan (1651), where the sovereign enforces collective security but individuals retain primary accountability for their actions. Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract (1762), however, introduced a proto-collective element via the "general will," asserting that true freedom requires individuals to subordinate particular interests to the community's sovereign expression, creating binding obligations on citizens to uphold laws reflecting communal rationality over personal desires. In the early 19th century, G.W.F. Hegel's Elements of the Philosophy of Right (1821) synthesized Enlightenment individualism with a robust conception of collective ethical life (Sittlichkeit), positing that abstract personal rights evolve into concrete freedom through participation in family, civil society, and the state as an organic ethical substance, where individuals bear responsibility not merely as isolates but as members fulfilling roles in the rational whole.^[18] Hegel contended that the state's institutions embody objective spirit, making collective structures bearers of moral authority; failure in one's station undermines the ethical community, implying distributed accountability across societal spheres rather than strict individualism. This dialectical approach contrasted with Kantian emphasis on individual moral autonomy, elevating group-mediated realization of ethical norms as essential to human development. Mid-19th-century socialism amplified collective dimensions through economic lenses, with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in The Communist Manifesto (1848) framing the proletariat as a unified historical agent responsible for dismantling bourgeois domination via class-conscious collective action, where workers' shared exploitation necessitates joint revolutionary duty rather than isolated reform. Marx's materialist view rejected Hegel's idealist state as alienating, instead attributing systemic harms to class relations and obligating the working class to seize collective control of production, as elaborated in Capital (1867), where surplus value extraction implicates capitalists in exploitative complicity but empowers proletarian solidarity as redemptive agency. This positioned collective responsibility as causal and praxis-oriented, tied to overthrowing structures perpetuating inequality. British Idealists in the late 19th century, influenced by Hegel, further embedded collective elements in moral philosophy; F.H. Bradley's Ethical Studies (1876) depicted the self as realized within the social organism, arguing that individual acts gain meaning through their impact on the interdependent whole, with duties extending to communal harmony over egoistic pursuits. Thinkers like T.H. Green reinforced this by viewing citizenship as active contribution to the common good, implying shared moral burdens in sustaining societal ethics against atomism. These views countered liberal individualism by stressing organic unity, where personal failings ripple collectively, prefiguring welfare-oriented responsibilities. Early 20th-century philosophy reflected these tensions amid industrialization and conflict, with collectivist strains informing responses to mass society; for instance, analyses of total war economies highlighted institutional accountability, as in corporate liability doctrines emerging from 19th-century precedents like the UK's Limited Liability Act (1855), which enabled group entities to bear legal responsibility independently of members. However, philosophical scrutiny remained preliminary, with individualist critiques persisting until mid-century debates on group agency.^[19]

Post-World War II and Contemporary Shifts

The atrocities of World War II, particularly the Holocaust, catalyzed philosophical and legal examinations of collective responsibility, shifting focus from abstract group agency to concrete national and institutional accountability. In 1946, German philosopher Karl Jaspers published The Question of German Guilt, delineating four guilt categories: criminal guilt for direct violations of law, political guilt arising from citizenship in a criminal state, moral guilt from personal complicity or failure to resist, and metaphysical guilt from human solidarity in a flawed world. Jaspers argued that all Germans incurred political guilt for Nazi crimes due to their membership in the polity that enabled them, necessitating collective acknowledgment and democratic renewal without excusing individual perpetrators.^[20] This framework rejected blanket collective criminality but affirmed shared political responsibility, influencing post-war German self-reflection amid Allied occupation policies. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg (1945–1946) prioritized individual prosecutions of 24 major Nazi leaders for crimes against peace, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, explicitly affirming personal accountability by invalidating the "superior orders" defense in its Charter and judgments.^[21] Yet, the trials laid groundwork for collective dimensions by indicting organizations like the SS and Gestapo as criminal groups, enabling subsequent denazification proceedings against over 8 million Germans screened for affiliations, and establishing state-level aggression as prosecutable under international law.^[22] These proceedings underscored tensions: while avoiding punitive collective guilt to prevent resentment, they imposed reparative duties on Germany, as seen in the 1952 Luxembourg Agreement committing the Federal Republic to 3.45 billion Deutschmarks in restitution to Israel and Jewish organizations.^[21] Post-war developments extended to supranational contexts, with the 1948 Genocide Convention attributing responsibility to states and groups for intent to destroy ethnic or national collectivities, ratified by 153 states by 2023. Cold War-era decolonization and human rights instruments, such as the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, further embedded collective state obligations, though enforcement remained uneven due to sovereignty barriers. In philosophy, mid-20th-century thinkers like H.D. Lewis critiqued overbroad group blame, advocating discernment between institutional roles and personal agency, while Hannah Arendt's 1963 Eichmann in Jerusalem highlighted "banality of evil" in bureaucratic complicity, prompting debates on diffused responsibility in hierarchical systems.^[23] Contemporary shifts reflect globalization and technological interdependence, applying collective responsibility to corporations, networks, and global publics. Corporate social responsibility frameworks, formalized in the UN Global Compact (2000) with over 15,000 participants by 2023, hold firms accountable for supply-chain harms like labor exploitation, as in the 2013 Rana Plaza collapse killing 1,134 in Bangladesh, spurring industry-wide remediation pledges.^[24] International tribunals, such as the ICTY (1993–2017), convicted groups and leaders for joint criminal enterprise in Yugoslav conflicts, convicting 90 individuals and attributing collective intent to military units. In environmental ethics, the 2015 Paris Agreement invokes shared but differentiated responsibilities among 196 parties, with major emitters like China (28% of 2022 global CO2) and the US (14%) bearing disproportionate remedial duties based on cumulative emissions since 1850 exceeding 1,800 gigatons. These evolutions emphasize forward-looking joint action over punitive blame, yet face causal attribution challenges in diffuse harms, as evidenced by stalled multilateral responses to pandemics like COVID-19, where WHO-coordinated efforts highlighted coordination failures among 194 member states.^[25]

Arguments Supporting Collective Responsibility

Theories of Collective Agency and Intention

John Searle posits collective intentionality as a primitive, irreducible capacity inherent in human biology, distinct from individual intentionality, whereby multiple agents share a "we-intention" to achieve a collective goal without reducibility to mere sums of individual "I-intentions." In this view, collective intentions ground social institutions through the imposition of status functions—such as money or marriage—requiring mutual recognition among participants, which Searle argues is causally efficacious in constituting social reality beyond brute facts. This irreducibility supports collective agency by attributing unified intentional direction to groups, enabling responsibility for outcomes like institutional failures, though critics contend it lacks empirical grounding in how individual brains generate such holistic states.^[26] In contrast, Michael Bratman's reductive account constructs shared intentions from interconnected individual intentions within cooperative activities, emphasizing planning structures where participants' subplans mesh, involve mutual responsiveness, and commit to the group's efficacy. Bratman, building on his planning theory of individual agency, requires reflexive intentions—each agent intending that the shared plan succeed through their contribution—thus enabling groups to coordinate over time without positing supra-individual minds. This framework underpins collective responsibility in contexts like teams or organizations, where shared plans justify holding the group accountable for non-fulfillment, provided individuals maintain the interlocking attitudes; however, developmental psychology evidence from infant studies challenges its applicability to early forms of joint action, suggesting simpler, non-planning-based collective intentionality emerges before age 3.^[27] Margaret Gilbert advances a normative reductive theory centered on joint commitments, where shared intentions arise from individuals committing to intend as a single body, creating mutual obligations enforceable by each participant.^[28] Unlike Bratman's focus on planning, Gilbert's plural subject account derives collective agency from these commitments, which bind agents regardless of personal desires, fostering group intentions in everyday joint actions like walking together or institutional roles.^[28] This supports attributions of collective responsibility, as breaches of joint commitments warrant group-level blame, though it presumes voluntary entry into commitments, potentially limiting application to coerced or diffuse groups like nations.^[29] Christian List and Philip Pettit offer a functionalist theory of group agency, applicable especially to structured organizations, where collective intentional states emerge from procedures aggregating individual inputs—such as majority voting—to form group beliefs and desires that are reasons-responsive and distinct from aggregative sums.^[30] Addressing the "discursive dilemma," they demonstrate how groups avoid inconsistency by adopting corporate-level attitudes, enabling rational agency and thus moral responsibility for actions like corporate decisions, independent of individual culpability.^[30] Empirical analogs in corporate governance, where boards deliberate collectively, substantiate this for institutional contexts, though it struggles with unstructured collectives lacking aggregation mechanisms, raising questions about causal efficacy of group intentions in unstructured harms.^[31] These theories collectively enable defenses of group responsibility by establishing intentionality at the collective level, yet diverge on reducibility: irreducible views like Searle's emphasize ontological primitives, while reductive ones ground agency in individual psychology plus relations, with functionalism bridging to empirical institutional data.^[32] Ongoing debates, informed by developmental evidence of proto-collective intentions in toddlers via joint attention tasks, test these models' psychological plausibility, suggesting hybrid forms may better capture causal pathways to group actions.^[33]

Justifications from Organizational and Institutional Contexts

In organizational contexts, corporations and firms exhibit collective agency through formalized decision-making structures, such as boards of directors and hierarchical protocols, which generate group intentions and actions irreducible to individual contributions. This justifies attributing moral responsibility to the organization for harms arising from coordinated endeavors, as the entity's volitional capacity enables prospective accountability, exemplified by BP's responsibility for the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill, where group-level oversight failures necessitated institutional remediation beyond individual prosecutions.^[2] Such agency aligns with causal realism, as aggregate decisions produce outcomes like environmental damage that no single member could achieve alone, thereby warranting collective ascription to incentivize internal compliance mechanisms.^[2] Treating organizations as organic entities further supports collective responsibility, positing that membership—encompassing active participants, observers, and even retirees—fosters a unified identity transcending direct causal input. Robert Albin argues this organic view justifies non-participant liability, as in a hotel where a porter bears responsibility for collective misconduct due to inherent belonging, rather than requiring individualized causation, which often fails in diffuse group dynamics.^[34] This approach counters empirical challenges by emphasizing structural interdependence, where organizational persistence and shared benefits impose obligations, as evidenced in business ethics frameworks holding firms accountable for ethical lapses like product safety failures.^[34] In institutional contexts, such as universities or government agencies, collective responsibility is justified by the scale of systemic impacts from policy coordination, where diffused authority does not negate group-level intentionality. Philip Pettit defends corporate moral agency by analogy to individual agents, noting that conversable entities like firms can be tracked, sanctioned, and reformed, fitting them for responsibility in ways that promote causal efficacy through reputational and regulatory pressures.^[35] For example, institutional responses to research misconduct, as in cases of fabricated data at major universities, attribute blame to the entity for failing oversight, enabling reforms like enhanced ethics boards that address root causal failures in collective processes.^[35] This framework prioritizes empirical verifiability of group actions over individualistic dilution, ensuring accountability matches the scope of institutional harms.

Arguments Against Collective Responsibility

Primacy of Individual Moral Agency

Moral responsibility is fundamentally attributed to individuals capable of intentional action, deliberation, and autonomous choice, capacities that abstract collectives inherently lack. Philosophers in the individualist tradition contend that genuine moral agency requires a unified consciousness and the ability to form intentions independent of aggregation, properties residing solely in persons rather than groups. For instance, unless a collective satisfies the precise conditions of individual moral responsibility—such as voluntary control over actions and awareness of consequences—it cannot qualify as a morally responsible entity.^[36] This view holds that attributing moral blame or praise to groups risks obscuring the specific agents whose decisions and behaviors causally drive outcomes, thereby undermining the basis for ethical evaluation. Critics of collective responsibility argue that groups function as mere instrumental aggregations of individual actions, without possessing an independent will or causal efficacy beyond the sum of member contributions. In this framework, collective harms or achievements trace back to discrete individual choices, and positing group-level agency dilutes accountability by diffusing responsibility across non-agentic entities. Empirical studies on responsibility attribution reinforce this, demonstrating that observers predominantly assign blame or credit based on an actor's perceived causal contribution to an event, rather than diffuse group membership. For example, experimental evidence indicates that responsibility judgments are sensitive to whether an individual's intervention altered the outcome's trajectory, highlighting a preference for tracing accountability to personal agency over collective labels.^[37] From a causal realist perspective, outcomes labeled as "collective" emerge from chains of individual decisions and omissions, not from sui generis group intentions. This reductionist approach posits that moral evaluation must pinpoint the agents who could have foreseen and altered the causal path, as groups lack the retroactive foresight or remedial capacity inherent to personal agency. Attributing responsibility to collectives, therefore, often serves rhetorical purposes but fails under scrutiny, as it cannot specify mechanisms for group-level intention formation or punishment that do not ultimately devolve to individuals. Such diffusion has been critiqued for eroding personal moral incentives, as members may rationalize inaction by deferring to the group's purported agency.^[14] In legal and ethical contexts, this primacy manifests in doctrines requiring proof of individual culpability, even in organizational settings, to avoid unjust collective sanctions. Psychological research on group dynamics further shows that while social influences shape behavior, ultimate responsibility remains with the individual who endorses and executes actions, as evidenced by attribution patterns favoring personal over situational or group factors in moral judgments.^[38] Proponents of individual moral agency thus maintain that prioritizing it preserves the integrity of ethical reasoning, ensuring accountability aligns with verifiable causal roles rather than amorphous group identities.

Causal and Empirical Challenges to Group Attribution

Causation is a prerequisite for moral responsibility, as agents are held accountable only for outcomes they proximately bring about through their actions or omissions.^[39] In collective contexts, attributing causation to a group entity encounters significant hurdles, particularly when group actions lack a unified intentional mechanism reducible to coordinated individual efforts. For instance, in loosely organized or large-scale collectives, such as diffuse social movements or global populations contributing to environmental harms, individual contributions often fail to meet thresholds for necessary causation, resulting in "collective responsibility gaps" where no single or aggregated actor can be causally pinpointed despite intuitive perceptions of group involvement.^[2] This gap arises because group-level effects, like cumulative pollution from millions of emitters, overdetermine outcomes without clear counterfactual dependencies on any particular subgroup's behavior.^[40] Philosophical critiques emphasize that collectives do not possess independent causal powers beyond the sum of individual agencies, complicating blame attribution in non-hierarchical structures where coordination failures or free-riding dilute traceability.^[41] In such cases, even if a group's nominal intentions exist, the absence of enforceable internal mechanisms means outcomes stem from disparate, often opportunistic individual choices rather than collective volition, undermining claims of group-level causality. Empirical investigations into collective harms, such as overexploitation in commons dilemmas, reveal that participants rarely internalize causal links to group-scale results, instead rationalizing inaction through perceived substitutability of efforts.^[42]^[43] Empirically, diffusion of responsibility in group settings further erodes reliable attribution, as individuals perceive diminished personal causal impact and blame when shared with others, leading to reduced accountability across the board. Classic experiments demonstrate this effect: in simulated emergencies, bystanders in larger groups intervene less and attribute fault diffusely, with response rates dropping from 85% in solo conditions to 31% with five observers present.^[44] Laboratory studies on group decision-making confirm that perceived shared agency lowers individuals' sense of responsibility for harmful outcomes, even when actions are jointly executed, fostering a collective under-attribution where no entity fully owns the result.^[45] This phenomenon persists in organizational contexts, where blame in decision chains dilutes as responsibility ascends hierarchies, with experimental participants assigning 20-30% less punishment to upstream actors in multi-agent scenarios compared to isolated ones.^[46] These causal and empirical barriers highlight the fragility of group attribution, as real-world data from group dynamics—such as endogenous formations in economic games—show initial selfish behaviors persisting due to diffused blame, only attenuating with repeated interactions that rarely scale to large collectives.^[43] Attributions of responsibility thus hinge on verifiable individual contributions rather than abstract group constructs, as empirical patterns consistently reveal over-reliance on group labels masks underlying causal opacity and personal evasion.^[37]

Applications Across Domains

In Political Systems and Governance

In parliamentary systems, collective responsibility operates as a constitutional convention binding cabinet members to publicly endorse all government decisions, fostering unity and accountability to the legislature as a cohesive entity. This principle, exemplified in the United Kingdom since the early 20th century, requires ministers to resign or face dismissal if they publicly dissent, as seen in historical cases like the 1936 abdication crisis where the government presented a unified front.^[47]^[48] Similar mechanisms apply in Canada and Australia, where the executive derives legitimacy from parliamentary confidence, ensuring that policy failures trigger collective electoral consequences rather than isolated blame.^[49] In coalition governments, prevalent in proportional representation systems, collective responsibility extends to multiple parties sharing power, but empirical analysis reveals challenges in voter attribution of outcomes. A 2012 study published in the British Journal of Political Science demonstrated that policy-seeking parties in such systems adapt strategies—prioritizing niche issues over broad economic performance—precisely because diffused responsibility reduces electoral penalties for individual coalition partners during downturns.^[50] For instance, post-2008 financial crisis coalitions in Europe, such as Germany's grand coalitions, saw incumbents retain power despite economic stagnation, as voters struggled to pinpoint causal agents amid shared governance.^[51] Presidential systems exhibit less formalized collective responsibility, relying instead on party platforms and electoral mandates to hold legislative blocs accountable for governance failures. In the United States, congressional majorities face unified blame for gridlock or policy shortfalls, as evidenced by midterm election swings where the president's party loses seats en masse—dropping an average of 28 House seats since 1946 when holding the presidency—reflecting retrospective voter judgments on collective legislative performance.^[51] This contrasts with parliamentary setups by emphasizing partisan rather than executive cohesion, though it similarly risks obscuring individual legislator roles in complex decision-making. At the international level, collective responsibility informs state accountability in multilateral governance, such as NATO's Article 5 mutual defense clause, where member states bear joint obligations for collective security. Empirical assessments of interventions, like the 2011 Libya operation, highlight how shared command diffused post-action recriminations, with no single nation facing isolated sanctions despite divergent outcomes.^[52] In supranational bodies like the European Union, treaty-based collective fiscal responsibility—mandating balanced budgets under the Stability and Growth Pact—has been tested, with violations by multiple states (e.g., Greece, Italy in 2018) prompting joint enforcement rather than unilateral penalties, underscoring causal interdependence in economic governance.^[53]

In Legal and Corporate Frameworks

In legal frameworks, doctrines like vicarious liability and respondeat superior attribute responsibility to principals or employers for the wrongful acts of agents or employees performed within the scope of their duties, without necessitating direct fault by the collective entity.^[54] ^[55] This imputation serves pragmatic ends, such as deterring negligence through incentivized oversight and enabling victims to recover from deeper-pocketed organizations rather than under-resourced individuals, as evidenced in common law jurisdictions where employers bear costs for employee torts like vehicular accidents during work hours.^[56] However, these mechanisms do not equate to metaphysical collective guilt; they operate on causal chains where individual actions proxy for organizational failures in control, preserving the primacy of personal agency by allowing parallel suits against perpetrators.^[57] Corporate criminal liability extends similar principles, holding entities accountable under respondeat superior for offenses committed by employees advancing company interests, as codified in U.S. federal law since the early 20th century.^[58] ^[59] For instance, corporations face fines or probation for bribery or fraud if agents act within employment scope, with penalties scaled to organizational size—such as the $8.9 billion settlement imposed on HSBC in 2012 for money laundering facilitation.^[60] The collective knowledge doctrine aggregates dispersed employee awareness to establish corporate mens rea, enabling prosecutions in fragmented bureaucracies where no single individual possesses full intent.^[61] Yet, this framework's limits are evident in shareholder protections via the corporate veil, which insulates investors from personal liability absent piercing for abuse, as upheld in doctrines limiting liability to entity assets.^[62] Empirical critiques highlight risks of responsibility diffusion, where organizational sanctions may substitute for individual prosecutions, though data from U.S. Department of Justice deferred prosecution agreements—numbering over 500 since 2004—often mandate personal accountability alongside corporate reforms to mitigate recidivism.^[63] In practice, such as Volkswagen's 2015 emissions scandal resulting in $30 billion in penalties and executive indictments, dual enforcement underscores that collective liability functions as a supplement, not erasure, of causal individual actions.^[64] In ethical and social movements, collective responsibility is invoked to address harms arising from shared social practices or historical patterns, where groups are deemed to bear moral obligations for systemic issues beyond individual control. Philosophers argue that such responsibility applies when collectives function as moral agents with unified intentions, as in coordinated activism against injustices like environmental degradation or discrimination.^[52] This view posits that members of a movement or society owe duties to reform structures they benefit from or perpetuate, such as through ongoing participation in polluting economies.^[65] Environmental movements exemplify this application, framing anthropogenic climate change—driven by cumulative greenhouse gas emissions totaling approximately 2,500 gigatons of CO2-equivalent from 1850 to 2020—as a collective human failing requiring joint remediation efforts.^[65] Organizations like Greenpeace and campaigns such as the 2015 Paris Agreement mobilize participants under this rationale, emphasizing shared culpability for biodiversity loss, with over 1 million species at risk due to habitat destruction linked to industrial expansion. Empirical studies on group dynamics indicate that invoking collective responsibility can enhance efficacy in such contexts by fostering coordinated action, as evidenced by the 2019 global climate strikes involving 7.6 million participants across 185 countries.^[66] However, this approach risks oversimplifying causal chains, attributing equal blame to low-emission individuals in developing nations alongside high-emission entities in industrialized ones.^[67] In social justice movements, collective responsibility justifies demands for reparative actions from groups implicated in historical wrongs, such as calls for societal atonement for slavery's legacy in the United States, where an estimated 4 million people were enslaved by 1860.^[68] Thinkers like Säde Hormio contend that social movements can incur collective duties to dismantle entrenched inequalities, provided members share intentionality toward common goals, as in anti-racism efforts tracing disparities like the U.S. Black-white wealth gap, which stood at a 10:1 ratio in 2019 Federal Reserve data.^[69] Yet, applications in movements like #MeToo, which from October 2017 amassed over 19 million Twitter uses of the hashtag, have drawn criticism for extending blame to entire professions or demographics without individualized evidence, potentially eroding due process norms.^[70]^[71] Critics, including anarchist Errico Malatesta, reject collective responsibility as theoretically absurd, insisting that moral accountability inheres solely in individuals capable of intentional choice, a position echoed in analyses of movements where group attribution excuses personal complicity or inaction.^[72] Psychological research supports this caution, documenting responsibility diffusion in groups, where individuals contribute less to collective tasks when outcomes are aggregated, as in classic experiments like Latané and Darley's 1968 bystander studies showing reduced intervention rates in larger assemblies.^[52] Thus, while collective framing galvanizes ethical movements—evident in suffrage campaigns culminating in the 1920 U.S. 19th Amendment after decades of organized pressure—it demands rigorous attribution to avoid unjust generalizations, prioritizing causal evidence over ideological solidarity.^[1]

Criticisms, Risks, and Misapplications

Dangers of Diluting Personal Accountability

Attributing outcomes to collective entities often results in diffusion of responsibility, a psychological process where individuals perceive diminished personal obligation to intervene or correct errors when others are perceived as sharing the burden.^[44] Experimental studies, such as those on the bystander effect conducted by Bibb Latané and John Darley in 1968, demonstrated that the presence of multiple observers significantly reduces the likelihood of any single person providing aid in emergencies, with helping rates dropping from 85% in solitary conditions to as low as 31% in group settings of five or more.^[73] This diffusion fosters inaction and moral disengagement, as individuals rationalize non-intervention by assuming collective oversight will suffice.^[74] In organizational and decision-making contexts, emphasizing collective responsibility can erode individual accountability, encouraging riskier behaviors since personal repercussions are obscured by group attribution.^[75] For instance, shared responsibility in teams has been linked to decreased sense of agency and heightened aggression or negligence, as agents underestimate their causal role in outcomes.^[44] This dilution manifests as moral hazard, where actors engage in imprudent actions—such as fraudulent practices—expecting blame to dissipate across the group rather than concentrate on personal failings.^[76] Corporate scandals like Enron's 2001 collapse, involving $74 billion in shareholder losses, exemplified this when pervasive fraud was framed as systemic cultural failure, initially shielding executives from immediate personal liability despite evidence of deliberate misrepresentation by figures like CEO Jeffrey Skilling.^[76] Such mechanisms undermine incentives for self-correction and ethical vigilance, as individuals prioritize group harmony over rigorous personal scrutiny, leading to recurrent failures.^[77] Post-crisis analyses reveal that blame avoidance through collective narratives delays accountability processes, perpetuating inefficiencies and eroding trust in institutions, as seen in financial crises where diffused responsibility prolonged recovery efforts.^[78] Over time, habitual dilution fosters a culture of evasion, where personal growth stagnates and societal standards decline due to unaddressed individual shortcomings masked as communal defects.^[79]

Historical Abuses in Collective Guilt and Punishment

The Treaty of Versailles, signed on June 28, 1919, included Article 231, known as the War Guilt Clause, which imposed collective responsibility on Germany and its allies for causing all loss and damage from World War I.^[80] This clause justified massive reparations totaling 132 billion gold marks, contributing to economic hardship and widespread resentment that fueled nationalist backlash.^[81] Historians argue that attributing sole blame to Germany overlooked shared culpability among Allied powers, exacerbating instability rather than achieving justice.^[82] Following World War II, Allied occupation policies in Germany initially pursued denazification through collective guilt attribution, requiring over 13 million Germans to complete questionnaires assessing Nazi involvement regardless of individual actions.^[83] This approach led to the dismissal or internment of millions, including anti-Nazis, based on ethnic German identity rather than proven complicity, with approximately 3.4 million undergoing formal proceedings.^[83] Early efforts aimed at psychological re-education to instill remorse, but they often devolved into blanket expulsions from Eastern Europe, displacing 12-14 million ethnic Germans without individualized trials.^[84] In the United States during World War II, Executive Order 9066, issued on February 19, 1942, authorized the forced relocation and incarceration of about 120,000 Japanese Americans, two-thirds of whom were U.S. citizens, into internment camps based solely on ancestry.^[85] This policy treated the entire group as suspect without evidence of individual disloyalty, resulting in loss of property, businesses, and civil liberties for families uninvolved in espionage.^[86] The Supreme Court in Korematsu v. United States (1944) upheld the measure, but it was later repudiated as a grave injustice, with reparations of $20,000 per survivor authorized in 1988.^[85] Under Joseph Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, collectivization from 1929 onward enforced collective farm responsibility, punishing entire rural communities for failures attributed to individuals, such as kulaks deemed class enemies.^[87] This included the execution of 30,000 kulaks and deportation of 2 million to labor camps, triggering famines like the Holodomor that killed millions through engineered scarcity.^[87] The "Law of Spikelets" (August 1932) imposed death or hard labor for theft from collective property, applying collective penalties to families and villages, amplifying terror without regard for personal culpability.^[88] Nazi Germany's Sippenhaft policy during World War II extended punishment to relatives of perceived traitors or resisters, executing or imprisoning family members irrespective of their involvement, as seen in cases like the July 1944 plot against Hitler.^[89] This kinship-based retribution, rooted in collective familial guilt, violated principles of individual accountability and contributed to the regime's internal repression.^[90] Such practices highlight how collective punishment historically eroded due process, fostering cycles of resentment and further conflict rather than resolution.^[91]

Political and Ideological Weaponization

In contemporary political discourse, collective responsibility is frequently invoked as a rhetorical device to ascribe moral culpability to broad demographic groups, such as racial or ethnic majorities, for perceived historical or systemic injustices, thereby justifying targeted policies without regard for individual causation. Empirical studies demonstrate that feelings of white collective guilt in the United States correlate with heightened support among white respondents for redistributive measures, including affirmative action, increased government spending on aid to Black communities, and expansions of welfare programs.^[92] This guilt attribution operates independently of traditional racial prejudice, functioning as a distinct attitudinal driver that influences electoral preferences and policy endorsements, often amplifying backing for candidates or initiatives framed as compensatory.^[93] Political ideologies on the left tend to cultivate such sentiments through narratives emphasizing inherited group liability, as evidenced by multivariate analyses linking liberal orientations to elevated collective guilt levels, which in turn predict favorable views on compensatory actions like reparations or equity programs.^[94] Ideologically, this mechanism has been embedded in identity politics frameworks, where collective guilt serves as a tool for enforcing compliance with agendas promoting group-based reparations or preferential treatments, frequently sidelining evidence of individual merit or current behaviors. For instance, proponents of critical race theory and related doctrines assert inherent group culpability—such as "white supremacy" as a systemic inheritance—for disparities, leveraging guilt to advocate for institutional reforms like diversity, equity, and inclusion mandates in corporations and governments, despite critiques that these diffuse accountability and lack causal rigor.^[95] In international contexts, analogous dynamics appear in post-colonial rhetoric, where Western nations face collective blame for imperial histories, pressuring concessions in trade, aid, or migration policies; surveys and analyses reveal ideology shapes guilt formation, with progressive views correlating to stronger endorsement of such obligations over national self-interest.^[96] Sources advancing these claims, often from academic institutions, exhibit patterns of ideological skew, prioritizing narrative coherence over falsifiable metrics of group-level causality, which undermines claims of neutrality.^[97] This weaponization extends to partisan mobilization, where assigning collective responsibility to out-groups—such as "the patriarchy" for gender inequities or "fossil fuel interests" for environmental harms—rallies base support by framing opposition as complicity in ongoing sins, even absent direct individual involvement. Political actors exploit this to bypass deliberative processes, as seen in campaigns for climate reparations from developed nations, predicated on aggregated historical emissions rather than per-capita or technological contributions.^[98] Critiques from economists and philosophers highlight the logical flaws, arguing that equating group membership with vicarious liability ignores non-consensual affiliation and incentivizes evasion rather than reform, yet such appeals persist due to their efficacy in consolidating ideological coalitions.^[98] In practice, this has fueled policy outcomes like mandatory corporate guilt-training programs post-2020 social unrest, where aggregate demographic blame supplanted investigations into specific incidents, prioritizing ideological signaling over empirical adjudication.^[99]

Empirical Evidence and Psychological Insights

Studies on Group Dynamics and Responsibility Diffusion

In a foundational experiment published in 1968, psychologists John M. Darley and Bibb Latané investigated bystander intervention by having participants believe they were part of an intercom discussion group where a confederate simulated an epileptic seizure. Subjects who thought they were alone reported the emergency 85% of the time within the first minute, but this rate fell to 62% when they believed one other person could hear and to 31% when five others were perceived as present, demonstrating that larger group sizes inversely correlate with individual action due to diminished personal responsibility.^[100] Darley and Latané attributed this "bystander effect" primarily to diffusion of responsibility, where potential helpers assume others will intervene, thereby reducing each person's perceived obligation and urgency to act.^[100] Subsequent replications, such as those manipulating perceived bystander numbers in smoke-filled room scenarios, confirmed that intervention likelihood decreases with group size, independent of factors like victim gender or ambiguity of the situation.^[101] Diffusion of responsibility extends beyond emergencies to collective tasks, as evidenced in social loafing studies where group members exert less effort when contributions are pooled and untraceable. For example, in experiments involving physical tasks like rope-pulling or clapping, individual output declined as group size grew—even after accounting for coordination inefficiencies—because participants felt less accountable for the collective outcome, assuming others would compensate.^[102] This pattern holds in non-physical contexts, such as group brainstorming or academic dishonesty in chat groups, where diffused responsibility fosters freeriding or norm violations, as individuals perceive lower personal stakes in shared endeavors.^[103] Empirical models link this to reduced motivation when identifiability is low, reinforcing how group dynamics dilute individual agency.^[104] Neuroscientific evidence further substantiates diffusion's causal role, beyond retrospective rationalization. A 2017 EEG study exposed participants to outcomes influenced by their actions alone or shared with others; when responsibility was diffused, neural markers of agency—such as the readiness potential—were attenuated before the outcome, indicating proactive reduction in perceived control rather than post-hoc bias.^[44] Similarly, functional imaging has shown decreased activation in responsibility-attribution brain regions during group decisions, correlating with lower guilt or helping intentions.^[105] These findings highlight diffusion's mechanistic basis in group settings, where equal status exacerbates it, though heterogeneous groups (e.g., varying expertise) can mitigate dilution by enhancing perceived individual pivotality.^[106] Overall, such studies empirically underscore how group presence systematically erodes personal accountability, informing critiques of collective responsibility frameworks.

Real-World Case Studies of Successes and Failures

The Montreal Protocol, adopted on September 16, 1987, exemplifies successful collective responsibility in international environmental governance, where 197 countries committed to phasing out ozone-depleting substances like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). This agreement, enforced through binding targets and technology transfers to developing nations, reduced global CFC production by over 98% since 1987, contributing to the Antarctic ozone hole's shrinkage from 29.6 million square kilometers in 1994 to 22.2 million in 2019, with full recovery projected by 2066.^[107]^[108] The success stemmed from verifiable scientific consensus on causal links between CFCs and stratospheric ozone depletion, combined with enforceable compliance mechanisms, avoiding the diffusion of responsibility seen in less structured accords.^[109] In global public health, the World Health Organization's (WHO) smallpox eradication campaign, launched in 1967 and certified complete on May 8, 1980, demonstrated effective collective responsibility through coordinated vaccination and surveillance across 50 countries, including U.S.-Soviet collaboration during the Cold War. Over 80% global coverage was achieved via ring vaccination strategies targeting outbreaks, eliminating the last natural case in Somalia on October 26, 1977, and preventing an estimated 2-3 million annual deaths thereafter.^[110]^[111] This outcome relied on shared accountability among governments, field teams, and donors, with empirical tracking of cases dropping from 131,839 reported in 1967 to zero by 1980, underscoring the efficacy of voluntary, incentivized group efforts over top-down mandates.^[112] Corporate application succeeded in the 1982 Johnson & Johnson Tylenol crisis, where cyanide-laced capsules killed seven in Chicago on September 29-October 1, prompting the company to recall 31 million bottles nationwide—at a cost of $100 million—despite no evidence of factory tampering. Leadership invoked the firm's credo prioritizing customer safety, halting production, and introducing tamper-evident packaging, which restored market share from 35% pre-crisis to 30% within months and sustained long-term dominance.^[113] This case highlights how unified organizational responsibility, transparently accepted without blame-shifting, mitigated reputational damage and rebuilt trust, as sales recovered fully by 1983.^[114] Conversely, the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster on January 28, 1986, illustrated failure through diffusion of responsibility in NASA's decision-making. Despite engineer Roger Boisjoly's January 27 memo warning of O-ring seal failure risks in 31°F cold—evidenced by prior tests showing erosion—the Thiokol-NASA teleconference saw management pressure override technical dissent, prioritizing launch schedule amid Reagan's State of the Union address. The Rogers Commission report cited groupthink and hierarchical deference as causal, resulting in the vehicle's explosion 73 seconds after liftoff and deaths of all seven crew, including teacher Christa McAuliffe; reforms followed, but only after the tragedy exposed accountability fragmentation.^[115]^[116] Soviet collectivization from 1928 to 1940 failed catastrophically when state-imposed collective farms (kolkhozy) dismantled private incentives, enforcing grain procurement quotas that ignored local yields and sparked peasant resistance via slaughtering livestock—reducing Soviet horse stocks by 50% and cattle by 40% between 1929 and 1933. This coercive aggregation of responsibility led to the Holodomor famine in Ukraine (1932-1933), with 3.9 million excess deaths there alone from starvation policies exporting grain amid shortages, totaling 5-7 million Soviet-wide fatalities; productivity plummeted, with grain output falling 26% in 1932 versus 1930.^[117]^[118] The policy's empirical collapse—yielding chronic inefficiencies until de-Stalinization—demonstrated how overriding individual agency in low-trust contexts fosters moral hazard and systemic underperformance, contrasting voluntary models.^[119]

References

[1]
What in the World Is Collective Responsibility? - PMC
In this paper we analyse the notion of collective responsibility and the criteria for its application to different types of groups.
[2]
Collective Responsibility Gaps | Journal of Business Ethics
May 4, 2018 · This study provides a framework for answering these questions. It begins by distinguishing between three kinds of collective (diffuse, teleological, and ...
[3]
Collective Responsibility Should be Treated as a Virtue
Oct 18, 2022 · I propose a new way of seeing collective responsibility, which is able to attribute the vice of irresponsibility to such disorganized groups.Missing: debates | Show results with:debates
[4]
Collective Responsibility - philosophy - jstor
"collective," responsibility is quite fundamental to our ordinary ethical attitudes. For if we believe that responsibility is literally shared, it becomes ...<|separator|>
[5]
Collective Responsibility | Philosophy | Cambridge Core
Feb 25, 2009 · In his paper 'Collective Responsibility' (Philosophy, July 1968) Mr. D. E. Cooper argues for the thesis that collectives can be held ...
[6]
Collective Responsibility - Bibliography - PhilPapers
A critique of David Miller's like minded group and cooperative practice models of collective responsibility.
[7]
The Meaning and Justification of Collective Moral Responsibility - jstor
The theory is based on distinctions between attributions of moral responsibility as directed toward individuals, collections of individuals and organized ...
[8]
Collective Responsibility - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Collective responsibility refers to the moral accountability of a group for a harm that has occurred, which can arise either from shared responsibility ...
[9]
Niels de Haan, On the Relation Between Collective Responsibility ...
To show this I distinguish between four types of responsibility and duty in collective contexts: corporate, distributed, collective, shared. I set out two cases ...Missing: distinctions | Show results with:distinctions
[10]
Symposia Papers: Collective Inaction and Shared Responsibility - jstor
No single person can save the child on his or her own; collective action is required to save the child. Yet, the collection of bystanders does nothing and the ...
[11]
Shared and Collective Responsibility - Oxford Academic
It is good to share responsibility. It not only flows from our being associated together in a community, but helps to create a sense of community. It is by ...The Logical Shape of... · Taking Responsibility · The Benefits of Sharing
[12]
Collective Responsibility - jstor
Oftentimes we are told that our moral outlook rests upon the idea of individual responsi- bility and hence certain proposals, such as affirmative action, are.
[13]
Individual and Collective Virtues in the "Republic" - jstor
8 Plato believes that only a minority of mankind have the ability to be philosophers and rulers and we must admit the corollary, however unpalatable, that these ...
[14]
[PDF] From Moral Agency to Collective Wrongs: Re - BrooklynWorks
Marion Smiley*. How is collective moral responsibility possible? This is the major question now being asked about collective responsibility in.Missing: scholarly | Show results with:scholarly
[15]
The Meaning of Kol Yisrael Arevim Zeh Bazeh - Colel Chabad
Apr 5, 2024 · In tractate Shevuot 39a, the Talmud states, “Kol Yisrael arevim zeh bazeh,” which translates to “All Jews are guarantors for one another.” This ...
[16]
Does Original Sin Include Guilt? - Reasons to Believe
Sep 19, 2023 · I think a careful case can be made for original sin (which includes our death, our moral corruption, and our guilt in Adam) from Scripture.
[17]
Sin as Guilt - The Gospel Coalition
Western theologians, on the other hand, have maintained that original sin involves both guilt and corruption, but they have debated how this sin is transmitted ...
[18]
[PDF] Hegel's Philosophy of Right
Further, as to rights, ethical life, and the state, the truth is as old as that in which it is openly displayed and recognised, namely, the law, morality, and ...
[19]
[PDF] Individualism vs. Collectivism
Nov 8, 2019 · The modern history of collectivism begins with the reaction to the French. Revolution in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century. In ...
[20]
The Question of German Guilt on JSTOR
Almost the entire world indicts Germany and the Germans. Our guilt is discussed in terms of outrage, horror, hatred and scorn.
[21]
The Nuremberg Trial and its Legacy | The National WWII Museum
Nov 17, 2020 · Though the trial failed to convince all Germans of their responsibility for initiating World War II and the Holocaust in Europe, it forged a ...
[22]
[PDF] Nuremberg and Group Prosecution
Does it follow that a collective person can never be made criminally responsible because it cannot act with a guilty mind, or does it rather follow that the.
[23]
Collective Complicity in War Crimes. Some Remarks on the ...
May 20, 2020 · The purpose of this paper is to attempt a critical analysis of one of the key elements of Walzer's theory, ie, the principle of the moral equality of soldiers.
[24]
Trials of Economic Actors at Nuremberg - KU Leuven
Oct 28, 2021 · The economic trials at Nuremberg highlighted the role of businesses in conflict and paved the way for the connection of corporate actors to international ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[25]
Collective responsibility and the state | International Theory
Mar 1, 2009 · This article considers the question of whether and to what degree citizens are responsible collectively for the actions of their state.
[26]
Full article: Collective intentionality: why content matters
According to Searle's view, it is in virtue of the way of representing the world – and not of what is represented – that we have genuine collective intentional ...
[27]
[PDF] On the transformative character of collective intentionality and the ...
Bratman's planning theory of collective intentionality can also be questioned on empirical grounds, namely from the perspective of cognitive developmental ...
[28]
Joint Commitment - Margaret Gilbert - Oxford University Press
In this wide-ranging collection of essays, distinguished philosopher Margaret Gilbert investigates the structure of our social world.
[29]
[PDF] THE IMPERSISTENCE OF JOINT COMMITMENTS - PhilArchive
Margaret Gilbert (1989, 2000c, 2014b) argues that a shared intention to do A consists in a joint commitment to intend to do A. But we need to know more about ...
[30]
Group Agency - Hardcover - Christian List; Philip Pettit
Group Agency offers a new approach to that question and is relevant, therefore, in a range of fields from philosophy to law, politics, and the social sciences.
[31]
[PDF] Review of Christian List and Philip Pettit's Group agency
As it turns out, group agents in List and Pettit's account are not metaphysically autonomous; but they are autonomous in the epistemological sense: In most ...
[32]
Group agency: the possibility, design, and status of corporate agents
Christian List and Philip Pettit argue that there really are group or corporate agents, over and above the individual agents who compose them.
[33]
[PDF] 31 Development of Collective Intentionality
Empirical approaches to studying collective intentionality and its development, as mentioned in the introduction, usually start off from our pre-theoretic ...
[34]
(PDF) Collective Responsibility: Organizations as Organic Entities
Aug 8, 2025 · This article discusses how to justify a non-participant member's responsibility for the actions of other group members, establishing collective ...
[35]
[PDF] Part I Arguments for Moral Responsibility of Firms - PhilArchive
This chapter offers a defense of a simple syllogism. First premise: corporations are conversable agents. Second premise: conversable agents are fit to be.
[36]
Moral Collectivism and the Methodology of Ethical Theory | Erkenntnis
Sep 9, 2025 · Moral collectivists argue that certain groups can bear moral responsibility and moral duties. Moral individualists reject this.
[37]
[PDF] Attributing Responsibility: - Causality in Cognition Lab
Feb 12, 2013 · We have discussed empirical evidence that attributions of responsibility are sensitive to whether a person's con- tribution made a ...
[38]
(PDF) Attribution in Groups: Estimations of Personal Contributions to ...
Aug 10, 2025 · Group members also displayed a group-serving tendency; they gave more responsibility to others after success rather than failure. The results ...Missing: evidence | Show results with:evidence
[39]
[PDF] 12 Responsibility and causation - Oxford University Research Archive
The standard view is that causation is necessary for responsibility; we are responsible for what we cause, not what arises from necessity or chance.
[40]
A guide to tackling the collective causation problem in international ...
Dec 15, 2022 · In this blogpost we unpack the problem of collective causation and systematize the arguments that plaintiffs can use to counter the assertion that the ...
[41]
[PDF] Diversity, Collective Responsibility, and the Problem of Control
ago, Larry May, a supporter of collective responsibility, claimed that with large socially constructed groups with members who occupy different positions ...
[42]
[PDF] Reasons, Blame, and Collective Harms Gunnemyr, Mattias
An improved account of causation entails that there is a causal connection between the single act and the outcome in collective harm cases. It entails, for.
[43]
Endogenous group formation and responsibility diffusion
For exogenously formed groups, we find evidence that the diffusion of responsibility generates selfish choices in initial periods. This effect diminishes with ...
[44]
Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of ...
Diffusion of responsibility across agents has been proposed to underlie decreased helping and increased aggression in group behaviour. However, few studies ...
[45]
Diffusion of Responsibility for Actions With Advice
Oct 16, 2024 · Diffusion of responsibility is typically defined as the effect by which people feel less responsible for outcomes of their actions when they ...
[46]
Blame and praise: responsibility attribution patterns in decision chains
Jul 9, 2024 · Understanding the empirical patterns of responsibility attribution is important because it has consequences for how we setup liability rules ...
[47]
Collective responsibility | Institute for Government
Collective responsibility is the convention whereby individual members of the government are accountable for the actions and decisions of government.
[48]
Collective responsibility - House of Commons Library - UK Parliament
Nov 15, 2016 · Collective responsibility is a fundamental convention of the British constitution, whereby the Government is collectively accountable to Parliament for its ...
[49]
Collective Responsibility - (AP Comparative Government) - Fiveable
Collective responsibility is a principle in parliamentary systems where all members of the governing party or coalition are collectively accountable for ...
[50]
Does Collective Responsibility for Performance Alter Party ...
May 14, 2012 · Empirically, there is extensive evidence that in cases of coalition government, voters have difficulty assigning responsibility for economic ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[51]
[PDF] The Decline of Collective Responsibility in American Politics
politics becomes increasingly fragmented, and collective responsibility becomes still more elusive. Popular Alienation from Government. For at least a decade ...<|separator|>
[52]
Collective Responsibility - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Aug 8, 2005 · Collective responsibility, as well as group intentions, collective action, and group blameworthiness, are metaphysically possible and can be ascribed to agents ...Making Sense of Collective... · Forward Looking Collective...
[53]
The transformation of collective responsibility
Dec 13, 2023 · As such, collective responsibility covers voting against the government line, criticising a government position, and the sharing of confidential ...Missing: governance | Show results with:governance
[54]
vicarious liability | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Vicarious liability, also known as imputed liability, is when a principal party is responsible for the actionable conduct of their agent based on the ...
[55]
respondeat superior | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Respondeat superior is a legal doctrine holding an employer liable for an employee's wrongful acts within the scope of employment, similar to strict liability.
[56]
What Is Vicarious Liability? Example and How to Avoid It
Vicarious liability is when a supervisory party is liable for the negligent actions of a third party for whom they are responsible. Employers can avoid ...What Is Vicarious Liability? · How It Works · Example · How to Avoid It
[57]
Responsibility for the acts of others - PMC - NIH
Respondeat superior embodies the general rule that an employer is responsible for the negligent acts or omissions of its employees. Under respondeat superior ...
[58]
Corporate Criminal Liability: An Overview of Federal Law
Oct 30, 2013 · Therefore, an individual who causes a corporation to commit a crime is criminally liable for the corporation's criminal conduct as an aider and ...<|separator|>
[59]
Memorandum - Corporate Criminal Liability for Bribery Under U.S. Law
Aug 12, 2023 · The most prominent theory of US corporate criminal liability is respondeat superior, the American legal doctrine where a corporation is liable for the criminal ...
[60]
Corporate Criminal Liability - Office of Justice Programs
Under the law of corporate criminal liability, corporations are only liable for the acts of employees when employees are acting within the scope and nature ...
[61]
The Collective Knowledge Doctrine Generally - Freeman Law
In white-collar criminal cases, the government often uses the collective knowledge doctrine to impose criminal liability against a corporation based upon ...
[62]
Direct and Vicarious Liability of Corpora" by Robert B. Thompson
The corporate form limits the liability of shareholders and other participants arising from the enterprise.
[63]
[PDF] Corporate Criminal Liability: End It, Don't Mend It By Stephen F. Smith*
Aug 12, 2022 · RICO, Continuing Criminal Enterprises, and conspiracy doctrine are examples. The fact that a person committed racketeering crimes in relation to ...
[64]
"Rethinking Criminal Corporate Liability" by Andrew Weissmann and ...
Under current federal law, a corporation, no matter how large or small, is criminally liable if a member of the organization commits a crime within the scope of ...
[65]
Collective responsibility for climate change - Hormio - 2023
Feb 14, 2023 · Climate change can be construed as a question of collective responsibility from two different viewpoints: climate change being inherently a collective problem.<|separator|>
[66]
Responding to the Socio-Ecological Crisis: Activism and Collective ...
This highlights the importance of creating and facilitating opportunities for collective action and fostering a sense of collective efficacy to promote ...
[67]
Individual Responsibility for Collective Climate Change Harms
May 2, 2024 · This work employs Elizabeth Cripps' collectivist account of responsibility for climate change in order to ground an individual duty to reduce one's GHG ...
[68]
Collective Moral Responsibility - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Collective responsibility is not as widely accepted a notion as individual moral responsibility, but its emphasis on the structure of organizations suggests a ...Feinberg's Taxonomy of... · Group Liability Without Fault · Group Liability with...
[69]
Sena Bölek, How Social Movements Bear Collective Duties
Collective Intentionality in Philosophy of Mind · Collective Responsibility in Meta-Ethics · Social Ontology in Social and Political Philosophy. Keywords.
[70]
How #MeToo revealed the central rift within feminism today
May 11, 2018 · The central claim of the anti-#MeToo feminists is that the movement does not treat individual women as moral agents with the capacity to say no, ...
[71]
Where #MeToo Came From, and Where It's Going - The Atlantic
Mar 24, 2019 · #MeToo is building a rich critique of freedom under conditions of inequality, a neglected topic. Criminal law's burden of proof is often ...
[72]
Collective Action and Collective Responsibility: Bad Concepts and ...
Apr 24, 2023 · Thus, Malatesta states, the concept of collective responsibility is at odds with anarchist principles of individual autonomy and free initiative ...Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[73]
Bystander Effect In Psychology
Sep 7, 2023 · Diffusion of responsibility occurs when a duty or task is shared between a group of people instead of only one person. Whenever there is an ...Definitions · Kitty Genovese · Decision Model of Helping · Why It Occurs
[74]
The Diffusion of Responsibility Concept in Psychology - Verywell Mind
Aug 10, 2023 · Diffusion of responsibility is a psychological phenomenon in which people are less likely to take action when in the presence of a large group of people.
[75]
The Downside of Teamwork in Leadership - Join The Collective
Apr 24, 2023 · Diluted Responsibility and Accountability: When decisions are made collectively, the sense of individual accountability can diminish. This ...Missing: dangers | Show results with:dangers
[76]
Replacing Blame with Accountability | Major Projects Association
For example, the troubles of British Petroleum, Enron, AIG, the US savings and loan scandal of the 1980s, and, more recently, Wells Fargo. You can blame Tony ...Blame In The Headlines · Blame Stifles Innovation · Blame And The Three Ds
[77]
Collective responsibility: Meaning, Criticisms & Real-World Uses
Oct 17, 2025 · One common critique is that it can dilute individual accountability, making it difficult to pinpoint specific individuals responsible for ...
[78]
Accountability and Blame Avoidance After Crises - ResearchGate
Jan 16, 2020 · The post-crisis accountability process is a purification ritual that serves to channel public emotions and enables re-equilibration after a severe disturbance.<|separator|>
[79]
Collective Responsibility and the Ethics of Group Accountability
Sep 25, 2025 · When everyone is held accountable for one person's missteps, it discourages personal growth and responsibility. Instead of encouraging ...
[80]
Article 231 - Historical Documents - Office of the Historian
Article 231. The Allied and Associated Governments affirm and Germany accepts the responsibility of Germany and her Allies for causing all the loss and damage.
[81]
How the Treaty of Versailles and German Guilt Led to World War II
Jun 29, 2018 · The Versailles Treaty forced Germany to give up territory to Belgium, Czechoslovakia and Poland, return Alsace and Lorraine to France and cede ...
[82]
Treaty of Versailles | Holocaust Encyclopedia
The treaty contained a "war guilt clause." This clause held Germany completely responsible for starting World War I. 3. The effects of World War I and its ...
[83]
Fears of Retribution in Post-War Germany | New Orleans
Sep 21, 2021 · More than 13,000,000 Germans filled out the questionnaire on denazification, more than one fourth or 3,441,800 persons needed to undergo formal ...
[84]
http://www.johndclare.net/Nazi_Germany8.htm
[85]
Executive Order 9066: Resulting in Japanese-American ...
Jan 24, 2022 · This order authorized the forced removal of all persons deemed a threat to national security from the West Coast to relocation centers further inland.Missing: collective punishment
[86]
Japanese American Incarceration | New Orleans
Congress provided $38 million in reparations in 1948 and forty years later paid an additional $20,000 to each surviving individual who had been detained in the ...Missing: collective | Show results with:collective
[87]
Stalin killed millions. A Stanford historian answers the question, was ...
Sep 23, 2010 · In the process of collectivization, for example, 30,000 kulaks were killed directly, mostly shot on the spot. About 2 million were forcibly ...
[88]
The Collective Punishment of Kin under Stalin - Communist Crimes
Sep 9, 2023 · The family constituted the basic unit of terror under Stalin. Political enemies were imagined and punished as kinship networks, real or symbolic.<|separator|>
[89]
On Collective Punishment - The Woodward Post
Oct 3, 2025 · Examples of collective punishment throughout history include: medieval times, most notably the policy of Sippenhaft in Germany, where entire ...
[90]
Stalin and the Politics of Kinship: Practices of Collective Punishment ...
Jan 14, 2008 · The Stalinist regime now cast a wide net when it came to the collective punishment of kin. In the case of class war, Soviet legislation rarely ...
[91]
A Short History of the War Crime of Collective Punishment
Oct 24, 2023 · The idea that imposing collective punishment could be criminal under international law dates back to the 1919 Report Submitted to the ...
[92]
Guilt by Association: White Collective Guilt in American Politics
May 21, 2019 · White respondents who carry collective guilt endorse affirmative action, government spending on aid to blacks, Obamacare, and welfare at higher ...Missing: weaponization | Show results with:weaponization
[93]
https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/703207
[94]
Collective Guilt, Political Ideology, and Compensation - jstor
Political ideology influenced the formation of feelings of collective guilt, but it was collective guilt rather than ideology that determined attitudes toward ...
[95]
The Compound Fractures of Identity Politics - City Journal
Feb 14, 2021 · Relentless new concepts of collective guilt insist that “white identity is inherently racist,” as celebrated diversity trainer Robin DiAngelo ...
[96]
Redeeming Apartheid's Legacy: Collective Guilt, Political Ideology ...
May 1, 2008 · Strong feelings of collective guilt were accompanied by positive attitudes toward affirmative action. The influence of political ideology on ...
[97]
How “Collective Human Rights” Undermine Individual Human Rights
Jun 25, 2020 · “Collective human rights” threaten individual human rights, creating the notion that the rights of a group can be more valuable than rights of individuals.
[98]
The Illogic of Collective Guilt - Econlib
Sep 23, 2020 · People think of governments were chosen by the people collectively, whereas ethnic groups don't choose ethnic presidents to do things on behalf ...
[99]
Is White Guilt Destroying the Promise of Civil Rights?: Event Transcript
White guilt is a manipulation. The fact that whites are stigmatized and therefore have to dissociate it all, have to find ways to prove that they're not, and so ...
[100]
Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility.
The presence of other bystanders reduced the individual's feelings of personal responsibility and lowered his speed of reporting.
[101]
Stand By or Stand Up: Exploring the Biology of the Bystander Effect
Latane and Darley identified three processes that they believed contributed to bystander inaction: diffusion of responsibility (individuals divide ...
[102]
[PDF] Research Article Diffusion of responsibility in group work: Social ...
Dec 13, 2020 · The aim of this research is to examine the effect of social loafing and cyberloafing behaviors on group work. The effect of social loafing and ...
[103]
The Group Nature of Academic Dishonesty & Diffusion of ...
The current study integrates group dynamics into an explanation of academic dishonesty in online student chat groups with a specific consideration of assessing ...
[104]
Diffusion of responsibility in group work: Social loafing
Dec 13, 2020 · Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149-168.
[105]
Shared Responsibility in Collective Decisions - PMC - PubMed Central
Yet how a collective can be held responsible is a much debated question in moral philosophy, given that a collective lacks the psychological capacities ...
[106]
Heterogeneous groups overcome the diffusion of responsibility ...
Nov 30, 2018 · Our results show that heterogeneous groups can be more effective in achieving norm compliance than groups of all equals because they naturally evade diffusion ...
[107]
About Montreal Protocol - UNEP
With the full and sustained implementation of the Montreal Protocol, the ozone layer is projected to recover by the middle of this century. Without this treaty, ...
[108]
Learning from the Montreal Protocol to improve the global ...
Oct 3, 2024 · The Montreal Protocol has played a critical role in promoting global collective action to phase out the use of ozone-depleting substances.
[109]
Lessons in Science and Diplomacy from the Montreal Protocol
Aug 10, 2020 · In response, the UN and U.S. mounted a campaign to reduce ozone-depleting chemicals worldwide, achieving their first success in 1985, when ...
[110]
Smallpox - World Health Organization (WHO)
In 1980 WHO declared smallpox eradicated – the only infectious disease to achieve this distinction.Missing: collective | Show results with:collective
[111]
The WHO and the Eradication of Smallpox | Origins
May 6, 2025 · Smallpox eradication was the result of a decades-long global program involving complex geopolitical cooperation, human ingenuity, and ...
[112]
Smallpox Eradication: A Model for Global Cooperation - CSIS
May 17, 2023 · This inaugural case study examines the motivations and mechanisms of joint US-Soviet efforts in smallpox eradication in the 1960s and 1970s.Missing: responsibility | Show results with:responsibility<|separator|>
[113]
People, politics and poison: the Tylenol® murders revisited forty ...
May 31, 2022 · The response by Johnson & Johnson became a model for crisis management. Johnson & Johnson's approach was successful in that it was later ...
[114]
How Did Johnson and Johnson's Corporate Responsibility Policy ...
How did Johnson and Johnson recover from the tainting of its Extra-Strength Tylenol capsules in 1982? It adhered to its corporate credo of responsibility.Missing: collective | Show results with:collective
[115]
[PDF] Rogers Commission Report 1 - Office of Safety and Mission Assurance
Jun 6, 1986 · The way to deal with a failure of this magnitude is to disclose all the facts fully and openly; to take immediate steps to correct mistakes that.
[116]
How Groupthink Played a Role in The Challenger Disaster
Oct 7, 2020 · (2016). Applied social psychology: Understanding and addressing social and practical problems 3rd edition. SAGE Publications. Teitel, Amy Shira.Missing: diffusion responsibility
[117]
[PDF] The Man-Made Famine of 1932-1933 in Soviet Ukraine
1933 was not caused by some natural calamity or crop failure, rather it was man-made. The famine was a consequence of the Soviet gov- ernment's campaign in ...
[118]
Stalin's famine: The causes of the Holodomor | VoxDev
Oct 9, 2025 · Already in 1932, it was obvious that the system was failing. After the famine, procurement quotas were tied to a farm's assigned sown area, ...<|separator|>
[119]
Stalin's Policy of Collectivisation and the Soviet Famines
Mar 28, 2023 · The famines also weakened the Soviet Union's position on the world stage, as it was seen as a failure of the Communist system. The impact of the ...