Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Responsibility

Responsibility, etymologically derived from the Latin respondere meaning "to promise in return" or "to answer for," denotes the condition of accountability wherein an agent must justify actions or outcomes attributable to their agency, judged against applicable norms or duties.^[1]^[2] In its core philosophical sense, it presupposes individual capacities for intentional control, foresight of causal consequences, and responsiveness to moral or rational reasons, distinguishing voluntary conduct meriting praise or blame from mere events.^[3]^[2] Philosophically, responsibility manifests in multiple dimensions: causal, tied to an agent's sufficient contribution to results rather than mere correlation; role-based, arising from positions entailing specific obligations; and universal moral, involving non-delegable duties inherent to rational beings.^[2] Legally, it underpins liability for breaches of enforceable standards, while socially it sustains cooperation through reciprocal accountability. Defining characteristics include the requirement of epistemic awareness—knowledge of relevant facts—and alternative possibilities or effective control, without which excuses like coercion or ignorance negate ascriptions.^[4] Notable debates hinge on its compatibility with determinism, where causal chains from prior states challenge ultimate self-origination, yet compatibilist views maintain responsibility via character-expressive actions under internal reasons-responsiveness, countering hard incompatibilist skepticism.^[4] Empirical inquiries, including neuroscientific studies on decision timing, probe these conditions but affirm persistent evidence for agent-causal efficacy in everyday accountability practices, resisting reductive eliminations.^[3]

Philosophical Foundations

Historical Origins and Evolution

The term "responsibility" derives from the Latin respondere, meaning "to respond" or "to pledge back," which entered Old French as responsible around the 14th century, denoting someone answerable or accountable for promises or actions.^[5] By the 1640s, "responsible" appeared in English to signify liability for conduct, with "responsibility" as a noun emerging by 1642 in political writings, initially emphasizing answerability to authority rather than broad moral agency.^[6] ^[1] This linguistic evolution reflected early usages in governance and law, where obligation stemmed from reciprocal pledges, as seen in Roman juristic responsum—formal legal opinions binding parties to duties.^[7] In ancient Greek philosophy, the foundational analysis of responsibility appeared in Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (c. 350 BCE), linking it to voluntary actions (hekousion) performed with knowledge, unimpeded choice, and originating from the agent's character rather than external force or ignorance.^[8] Aristotle distinguished responsible conduct as that warranting praise or blame, contingent on eph' hēmin ("up to us"), where individuals control outcomes through deliberation and habituated virtues, excluding acts like those under compulsion or in error.^[9] This framework prioritized causal agency over fate or divine intervention, influencing subsequent Western thought by grounding accountability in human capacity for self-determination, as evidenced in his criteria for mixed actions blending voluntariness and necessity.^[10] Medieval scholasticism adapted Aristotelian voluntariness to Christian theology, with Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274) in Summa Theologica (1265–1274) positing responsibility for sin as arising from deliberate consent to evil, absent ignorance or coercion, thus rendering humans accountable to divine justice while preserving free will against predestination debates.^[3] The Enlightenment shifted emphasis toward individual autonomy, as in Immanuel Kant's Critique of Practical Reason (1788), where moral responsibility inheres in rational agents' capacity to act from duty via the categorical imperative, imputing blame for violations of universalizable maxims irrespective of empirical consequences.^[11] This prospective, deontological view evolved into modern existential interpretations, notably Jean-Paul Sartre's Being and Nothingness (1943), asserting "man is condemned to be free," imposing absolute responsibility for choices in a godless, indeterminate world, unbound by prior essence or determinism.^[12] By the 20th century, analytic philosophy further refined it through compatibilist debates, reconciling responsibility with causal determinism via internalist conditions like reasons-responsiveness, as explored in works questioning libertarian free will.^[11]

Core Concepts: Attribution, Agency, and Accountability

Attribution in the context of responsibility refers to the philosophical process of ascribing actions, omissions, or character traits to an agent in a manner that reflects their evaluative commitments or "deep self," rather than external factors or compulsions.^[13] Attributionists, such as T.M. Scanlon and George Sher, argue that moral responsibility arises when behavior discloses the agent's moral personality or judgment-sensitive attitudes, making it sufficient for praise or blame without necessitating further control conditions.^[13] This view contrasts with accountability models by emphasizing self-expression over interpersonal demands, as actions attributable to the agent warrant evaluation based on their alignment with the agent's values.^[13] Agency constitutes the foundational capacity enabling responsibility, characterized by an agent's ability to govern actions through responsiveness to reasons and moderate control over mechanisms of decision-making.^[13] In compatibilist frameworks, such as that of John Martin Fischer and Mark Ravizza, moral agency involves "guidance control," where the agent's motivational system is suitably reasons-responsive, allowing intentional behavior even under deterministic conditions.^[13] This capacity distinguishes paradigmatic agents, like rational adults, from those with diminished agency, such as young children or individuals under coercion, who may lack the deliberative freedom required for responsible attribution.^[14] Empirical considerations, including psychological evidence of self-control mechanisms, support agency as varying in degree rather than being binary, influencing the scope of responsibility across contexts.^[13] Accountability extends attribution and agency by imposing answerability to others, involving the justification of actions through reasons and susceptibility to sanctions like blame or punishment when norms are violated.^[13] Philosophers like Gary Watson distinguish it from mere attributability by requiring fairness in holding agents to moral competencies, such that impaired agency mitigates but does not eliminate accountability in cases of negligence.^[13] In Angela Smith's unified account, accountability integrates with answerability— the ability to respond to moral reasons—ensuring that responsible agents not only originate actions but also engage interpersonally with ethical demands. These concepts interrelate causally: without agency, attribution lacks a basis in control; without attribution, accountability risks misdirecting sanctions; together, they form the triadic structure of responsibility, balancing individual capacities with social enforcement.^[13]

Moral and Ethical Dimensions

Individual Moral Responsibility

Individual moral responsibility denotes the deservedness of praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an agent's actions or omissions, contingent on those actions stemming from voluntary choices informed by knowledge of their morally relevant properties.^[15] Standard conditions include sufficient control over the action, epistemic grasp of its foreseeable consequences, and absence of coercion that undermines agency.^[16] These criteria distinguish responsible conduct from mere causation, as causal contribution alone—such as in reflexive or compelled acts—does not suffice for moral accountability.^[16] Aristotle laid foundational emphasis on voluntariness, asserting in the Nicomachean Ethics that agents bear responsibility only for actions originating internally without force or ignorance of particulars, such as the action's nature, effects, or circumstances.^[17] Involuntary actions, by contrast—those induced by external compulsion or error regarding essential facts—exculpate the agent, as they lack the deliberate origin required for virtue or vice.^[18] This framework ties responsibility to rational deliberation and choice, presupposing the agent's capacity to initiate action from within, thereby enabling praise for beneficent deeds and blame for harmful ones performed knowingly and freely.^[17] Immanuel Kant advanced a deontological account, grounding individual responsibility in autonomy: the rational will's self-legislation under the categorical imperative, independent of empirical causation or inclinations.^[19] For Kant, moral accountability requires freedom as a transcendental condition, where agents act from duty rather than heteronomous motives, rendering them imputable for violations of universalizable maxims.^[20] This autonomy precludes excuses rooted in determinism or external influences, as rational beings possess the capacity to align actions with moral law through pure practical reason.^[19] Central disputes revolve around free will's compatibility with determinism. Incompatibilists, including libertarians, contend that genuine responsibility demands alternative possibilities and ultimate sourcehood, uncaused by prior events, to avoid regress to deterministic chains absolving agency.^[21] Compatibilists counter that responsibility inheres in actions guided by uncoerced reasons responsive to the agent, even under determinism, as hierarchical desires or reflective endorsement suffice for control without indeterminism.^[16] P.F. Strawson's reactive attitudes approach shifts focus to natural interpersonal responses like resentment or gratitude, which presuppose responsibility absent excuses disrupting participant stance, independent of metaphysical free will.^[22] Empirical findings on attribution, such as reduced blame for genetically influenced behaviors, suggest folk intuitions align more with compatibilist or control-based views than strict libertarianism, though these do not resolve underlying philosophical tensions.^[23]

Collective and Shared Responsibility

Collective responsibility refers to the moral accountability ascribed to groups as entities, rather than solely to their individual members, for outcomes involving harm or wrongdoing where the group's structure or actions contribute causally.^[24] This form of responsibility is distinct from shared responsibility, which involves apportioning blame among individuals for their contributions to a joint outcome, often without the group itself bearing irreducible liability.^[25] In collectivist theories, groups achieve moral agency through mechanisms like joint commitments, where members obligate themselves collectively to act or intend as a body, enabling attributions of praise or blame to the group independent of individual culpability.^[26] Philosophers adopting a collectivist approach, such as Margaret Gilbert, argue that collective intentionality arises from open expressions of readiness to commit jointly, creating a unified subject capable of moral responsibility, as seen in coordinated group actions like corporate decisions or military operations.^[26] In contrast, individualist positions maintain that genuine moral responsibility requires personal agency and cannot vest in abstractions like nations or firms, reducing group accountability to the summed liabilities of participants.^[24] Criteria for applying collective responsibility typically demand that the group possess a distinct identity, shared intentions, and capacity for control over outcomes, applicable mainly to organized entities engaging in joint actions rather than loose aggregates.^[24] Proponents contend that recognizing collective responsibility fills gaps in accountability for systemic harms, such as environmental degradation from uncoordinated industrial practices, where no single actor bears full causal weight but the group's emergent behavior does.^[27] Treating it as a virtue, per some analyses, fosters coordinated restraint in disorganized collectives facing challenges like mass surveillance or climate inaction, satisfying epistemic (joint knowledge), control, and freedom conditions for moral agency.^[27] Empirical parallels in group dynamics, such as diffusion of responsibility in crowds, underscore its utility in explaining why collective inaction persists despite individual awareness.^[24] Critics, including Garret Hardin in his 1968 analysis of the "tragedy of the commons," warn that collective responsibility erodes individual initiative by diffusing personal stakes, potentially justifying coercive interventions that undermine self-governance.^[28] Ontological objections highlight that groups lack consciousness or independent volition, rendering moral blame incoherent and risking unfair punishment of non-culpable members, as in retrospective attributions for historical atrocities like Nazi-era complicity among civilians.^[28]^[24] Such views emphasize that while groups can produce wrongs through structural incentives, true desert-based responsibility demands traceable individual causation and control.^[28] In shared responsibility frameworks, ethical theories apportion degrees of blame based on causal contributions and foreknowledge, as in cases of collaborative negligence where participants knowingly enable harm without full joint intent.^[25] This approach avoids collectivist pitfalls by preserving individual agency, though it struggles with quantifying shares in complex scenarios like policy failures in bureaucracies.^[29] Overall, the debate pivots on whether irreducible group agency exists metaphysically or serves primarily as a pragmatic tool for deterrence, with collectivist models gaining traction for institutional contexts but facing persistent challenges in justifying non-derivative blame.^[24]^[28]

Legal Frameworks

Criminal and Tort Liability

Criminal liability requires both a voluntary guilty act, known as actus reus, and a culpable mental state, or mens rea, to establish an individual's responsibility for a public wrong prosecuted by the state.^[30]^[31] The actus reus encompasses the physical conduct or omission that constitutes the prohibited act, which must be voluntary and not attributable to factors like reflex or unconsciousness, ensuring that responsibility is linked to controllable behavior rather than mere status or thoughts.^[32] Mens rea varies by offense but typically includes intent, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence, attributing responsibility only where the actor's mindset demonstrates sufficient culpability; for instance, strict liability crimes, which impose responsibility without mens rea, are limited to regulatory offenses like statutory rape to balance deterrence with fairness.^[33] Defenses such as insanity or duress negate responsibility by undermining voluntariness or culpability, reflecting a causal emphasis on the defendant's agency in the harm.^[34] Tort liability, in contrast, addresses private wrongs through civil remedies focused on compensation, attributing responsibility more broadly without always requiring intent.^[35] Intentional torts, such as battery or false imprisonment, parallel criminal counterparts by demanding purposeful conduct causing harm, thus holding actors responsible for deliberate invasions of rights.^[36] Negligence predominates, imposing liability where a defendant breaches a duty of reasonable care, proximately causing foreseeable damages; responsibility here stems from failure to act as a prudent person would, emphasizing causal foreseeability over moral blameworthiness, as seen in the four elements: duty, breach, causation, and injury.^[35] Strict liability dispenses with fault entirely for ultrahazardous activities or defective products, attributing responsibility based solely on the act's inherent risks and resulting harm, as in abnormally dangerous undertakings where societal benefit does not excuse uncontrolled dangers.^[37]^[38] The distinction underscores divergent aims in responsibility attribution: criminal law prioritizes retribution and deterrence via proof beyond a reasonable doubt, reserving punishment for willful violations of public order, while tort law employs a preponderance standard to rectify individual losses, often extending accountability to inadvertent or no-fault scenarios without incarceration.^[39] Overlap occurs when conduct triggers both, as in assault yielding criminal conviction and tort damages, but double jeopardy bars retrial for the same offense, allowing civil suits to independently assess compensatory responsibility.^[40] This framework maintains causal realism by tying liability to verifiable acts and mental states in criminal contexts, versus probabilistic harm attribution in torts, avoiding overreach into non-volitional conduct.^[41]

Corporate and Organizational Liability

Corporate and organizational liability encompasses the legal doctrines attributing responsibility to entities for civil wrongs, crimes, or regulatory violations committed by their agents, officers, or through organizational policies. This framework balances the benefits of limited liability—which shields individual owners from personal accountability—with the need to deter misconduct and ensure remedies for harmed parties. In the United States, liability arises either vicariously, imputing agents' actions to the entity, or directly, based on collective organizational fault.^[42]^[43] Vicarious liability, rooted in agency principles, holds organizations accountable for employees' torts committed within the scope of employment, regardless of the entity's direct fault. The doctrine of respondeat superior—Latin for "let the superior answer"—exemplifies this, imposing liability on employers to encourage risk prevention and provide plaintiffs access to deeper pockets for compensation. Originating in English common law by the late 1690s, as seen in cases like Herman v. Yeates (1696), it has been codified and applied broadly in U.S. jurisdictions, extending to negligent acts like medical malpractice or vehicle accidents during work duties. Courts determine "scope" by factors such as time, place, and motivation tied to job duties; for instance, an employee's detour for personal errands typically exempts the employer.^[42]^[44]^[45] In criminal contexts, organizational liability diverges from individual mens rea requirements, often imputing culpability from agents' acts. Under federal common law, as established in New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States (1909), corporations face criminal penalties for employees' violations if committed on the entity's behalf, even without explicit high-level approval. The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code § 2.07 refines this, limiting liability to offenses where a high managerial agent acts with the requisite mental state on behalf of the organization, or where the entity's policy fosters the offense. This approach, adopted in several states, rejects strict vicarious liability for serious crimes to avoid over-deterrence, focusing instead on failures in oversight or culture. For example, in environmental or antitrust cases, fines can reach billions, as in the $8.9 billion penalty against BP following the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill, attributed to systemic safety lapses.^[46]^[47] Direct organizational liability arises from collective knowledge or policies, such as in securities fraud where aggregated employee awareness equates to corporate intent. The "responsible corporate officer" doctrine imposes strict liability on executives for regulatory breaches like food safety violations under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as affirmed in United States v. Dotterweich (1943) and United States v. Park (1975), emphasizing failure to remedy known risks rather than personal wrongdoing. However, limited liability protections persist unless the corporate veil is pierced, a rare equitable remedy applied when entities are mere alter egos—evidenced by undercapitalization, commingling of assets, or fraudulent use to evade obligations. Empirical analyses show veil-piercing succeeds in fewer than 50% of attempts, predominantly in contract rather than tort claims, underscoring judicial reluctance to undermine entity separateness without clear abuse.^[48]^[49] Defenses include compliance programs, as incentivized by U.S. Sentencing Guidelines §8, which reduce penalties for effective ethics training and reporting mechanisms post-1991 reforms. Internationally, principles vary; the UK's identification doctrine requires attributing acts to the "directing mind" of the company, as in Tesco Supermarkets Ltd v. Nattrass (1971), contrasting broader U.S. aggregation models. These mechanisms promote accountability while preserving incentives for organizational formation, though critics argue broad imputation risks punishing innocent shareholders without causal links to harm.^[50]^[49]

Psychological and Behavioral Aspects

Personal Agency and Decision-Making

Personal agency in psychology denotes the individual's belief in their capacity to originate actions, exert influence over events, and achieve intended outcomes through volitional control.^[51] This construct underpins decision-making by shaping how people evaluate options, anticipate consequences, and commit to courses of action, with empirical evidence linking stronger agency perceptions to proactive behaviors and reduced procrastination.^[52] In the context of responsibility, personal agency facilitates self-attribution of outcomes, where individuals holding themselves accountable for decisions exhibit higher motivation to correct errors and pursue goals.^[53] A core framework is locus of control, developed by Julian Rotter, which differentiates internal locus—where reinforcements stem from personal efforts—and external locus, attributing results to fate or others.^[54] Empirical studies demonstrate that internal locus correlates with elevated self-responsibility, as seen in research where such individuals report greater regret for suboptimal decisions and demonstrate sustained effort in tasks requiring accountability.^[55] ^[56] For instance, in environmental behavior experiments, internal locus participants assumed more personal duty for sustainable actions, leading to measurable increases in pro-environmental choices compared to external locus counterparts.^[56] Complementing this, Albert Bandura's self-efficacy theory posits that convictions in one's abilities to execute requisite behaviors directly impact decision efficacy and outcome expectancies.^[57] High self-efficacy promotes internal causal attributions for achievements, fostering resilience in decision-making under adversity; longitudinal data from academic settings reveal that students with robust self-efficacy persist longer on challenging tasks and attribute failures to modifiable factors rather than immutable traits.^[58] ^[59] Conversely, low self-efficacy aligns with external attributions, diminishing perceived responsibility and increasing avoidance of agentic choices, as evidenced in workplace studies where low-efficacy employees deferred decisions to superiors, correlating with reduced performance accountability.^[60] Decision-making processes influenced by agency often involve cognitive elements like forethought and self-regulation, enabling individuals to weigh alternatives causally rather than reactively.^[61] Meta-analyses confirm that agency beliefs predict variance in health outcomes, with internal agency linked to self-imposed adherence to regimens, underscoring its role in assuming responsibility for long-term consequences.^[62] Disruptions, such as those from chronic external reinforcements, can erode agency, leading to phenomena like learned helplessness, where diminished control perceptions result in abdication of personal responsibility despite viable options.^[54] Thus, cultivating agency through targeted interventions, like efficacy-building training, enhances decision ownership and ethical accountability in behavioral domains.^[63] Diffusion of responsibility refers to the psychological tendency for individuals to perceive diminished personal accountability for action or inaction when part of a group, as responsibility is psychologically distributed among members, reducing the urgency for any single person to intervene.^[64] This phenomenon arises from cognitive processes where bystanders assume others will act, leading to collective inertia despite individual capability. Empirical investigations, including EEG studies, demonstrate that diffusion directly attenuates the sense of agency during decision-making, independent of post-hoc rationalizations like self-serving bias.^[64] Closely related is the bystander effect, wherein the presence of others inhibits helping behavior in emergencies, exacerbating diffusion by signaling shared rather than individual responsibility. Pioneering experiments by John M. Darley and Bibb Latané in 1968 simulated an epileptic seizure via intercom among university students who believed they were in a group discussion; participants helped 85% of the time when alone but only 62% when they thought one other person was present, dropping to 31% with two others perceived.^[65] The researchers attributed this to diffusion, where perceived group size inversely correlates with personal obligation, supported by subsequent replications showing consistent reductions in intervention rates as bystander numbers increase—e.g., from 70-80% helping alone to under 40% in groups of three or more.^[66] These effects extend beyond emergencies to group tasks, manifesting as social loafing where individuals exert less effort under collective responsibility, as documented in meta-analyses of productivity studies revealing effort reductions of 20-30% in group settings compared to solo work.^[67] Pluralistic ignorance—misinterpreting others' inaction as non-urgency—often compounds diffusion, though primary causality lies in diluted agency rather than mere conformity.^[65] Critiques note that the effect weakens with direct responsibility cues or high self-awareness, and real-world applications, such as corporate scandals, highlight how diffused accountability enables ethical lapses without individual culpability.^[68] While early inspirations like the 1964 Kitty Genovese murder underscored bystander passivity, later analyses clarified fewer actionable witnesses than initially reported (closer to 6-10 who heard cries but hesitated due to ambiguity and group presence), reinforcing the mechanisms without relying on sensationalized accounts.^[65] In organizational contexts, diffusion undermines accountability, as evidenced by experiments where group-formed teams initially exhibit selfish choices from shared blame diffusion, though effects attenuate over repeated interactions.^[69]

Personal Responsibility Versus Systemic Explanations

The debate between personal responsibility and systemic explanations centers on whether individual choices, behaviors, and agency primarily drive socioeconomic outcomes or whether entrenched structural factors, such as economic inequality, historical discrimination, and institutional barriers, predominate. Proponents of personal responsibility argue that volitional actions—like education pursuit, work ethic, and family formation—offer pathways out of adversity, supported by longitudinal data showing variance in outcomes among those facing similar systemic constraints. In contrast, systemic views, prevalent in much of academic sociology and policy discourse, posit that individual efforts are often futile against immutable societal forces, though this perspective has been critiqued for underestimating agency and correlating with ideological preferences in research institutions.^[70]^[71] Empirical analyses of the "success sequence"—completing high school, securing full-time employment, and delaying childbirth until marriage—demonstrate its strong association with poverty avoidance. A synthesis of U.S. longitudinal studies found that young adults adhering to these milestones exhibit poverty rates as low as 2-3 percent, compared to 70-76 percent for those following none, even after controlling for family background and initial socioeconomic status. This sequence's efficacy holds across racial groups, with black Americans following it achieving middle-class stability at rates comparable to whites, underscoring how behavioral choices mitigate systemic disadvantages like urban poverty concentrations.^[72]^[73]^[74] Behavioral genetics research further bolsters the role of individual factors through twin and adoption studies, revealing moderate to high heritability (40-50 percent) for socioeconomic attainment, educational success, and related traits like self-control and cognitive ability. Identical twins reared apart show greater convergence in occupational status and income than fraternal twins or non-twin siblings from similar environments, indicating that genetic endowments influencing agency—such as conscientiousness and impulse control—explain substantial outcome variance beyond shared systemic exposures like neighborhood poverty. These findings challenge purely structural models by highlighting how innate and cultivated personal attributes enable navigation of barriers.^[75]^[76]^[77] Critiques of systemic primacy note its tendency to overlook cultural and behavioral divergences, as evidenced by economist Thomas Sowell's analyses of global disparities, where groups like Overseas Chinese or Jews outperform despite discrimination, attributable to norms emphasizing responsibility over victimhood narratives. Historical experiments, such as unconditional welfare expansions in the mid-20th century U.S., correlated with family structure breakdowns and persistent poverty, suggesting that absolving personal accountability exacerbates rather than alleviates issues. Social science's overreliance on structural explanations may stem from selection biases in academia, where surveys indicate audience demographics influence framing—e.g., emphasizing systems for certain groups—potentially inflating systemic attributions beyond empirical warrant.^[78]^[79]^[80]

Cultural Shifts and Policy Implications

In contemporary Western societies, particularly in the United States and Europe, a notable cultural shift has occurred from a "dignity culture," emphasizing personal resilience and informal resolution of grievances, to a "victimhood culture" where individuals seek recognition of harm through institutional intervention to affirm moral superiority. Sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning describe this as a system combining heightened sensitivity to slights with reliance on third parties, such as universities or media, to validate claims of victimization, often over minor perceived offenses like microaggressions. This evolution, accelerating since the early 2010s on college campuses, fosters "moral dependence," reducing incentives for self-resolution and personal accountability, as evidenced by the exponential rise in [Title IX](/page/Title IX) complaints and demands for safe spaces, which prioritize emotional protection over robust debate.^[81]^[82] Psychologist Jonathan Haidt attributes this shift to broader societal trends, including the therapeutic ethos and overparenting, which validate fragility and external attributions for personal failings, correlating with documented increases in youth anxiety and depression rates—U.S. emergency visits for mental health among adolescents rose 31% from 2011 to 2015. Empirical indicators include surveys showing polarized attitudes: conservatives emphasize individual agency, while liberals favor systemic explanations, with the latter dominating academia and media, institutions critiqued for left-leaning biases that amplify victim narratives over causal analyses of behavior. This cultural dynamic erodes internal locus of control, as generalized victimhood mindsets correlate with reduced personal initiative, per studies linking perceived chronic victimization to avoidance of responsibility across relationships.^[83]^[84] Policy implications manifest in preferences for structural interventions that downplay individual choices, such as expansive welfare expansions attributing poverty to systemic barriers rather than behaviors. The "success sequence"—finishing high school, obtaining full-time employment, and marrying before childbearing—empirically slashes poverty odds to 2% for millennials who follow it, underscoring personal responsibility's role in economic mobility, yet victimhood-framed policies often sideline such sequences in favor of unconditional aid. The 1996 U.S. Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, conditioning benefits on work, halved welfare caseloads and lifted child poverty by 1999, demonstrating that enforcing responsibility boosts self-sufficiency, whereas unconditional systems risk dependency traps, as labor supply drops with generous transfers. In criminal justice, systemic victim lenses have spurred decarceration, with U.S. prison populations falling 25% since 2009 amid rising attributions of crime to inequality, though violent crime surged 30% in major cities from 2019 to 2022, challenging efficacy without accountability. These trends, amplified by institutional biases toward collectivist explanations, prioritize equity mandates like DEI initiatives, potentially undermining merit-based systems by presuming inherent disadvantage over verifiable agency.^[85]^[86]

Contemporary Applications and Challenges

Technological Responsibility Gaps

Technological responsibility gaps emerge when autonomous technologies, such as artificial intelligence systems and self-driving vehicles, produce outcomes—particularly harms—for which traditional mechanisms of attributing moral, legal, or causal accountability to human agents prove inadequate due to the systems' opacity, distributed decision-making, and diminished direct human control.^[87] These gaps are characterized not merely by technical complexity but by a structural mismatch between the scale of potential impacts and the diluted agency of involved parties, including designers, operators, and users.^[88] Philosophers identify at least four interconnected forms: culpability gaps, where no party meets criteria for blameworthiness; moral accountability gaps, lacking entities suitable for praise or blame; public accountability gaps, arising from insufficient transparency for oversight; and active responsibility gaps, where no agent is positioned to proactively mitigate risks.^[87]^[89] A prominent example occurred on March 18, 2018, when an Uber autonomous test vehicle in Tempe, Arizona, struck and killed pedestrian Elaine Herzberg after the system's sensors failed to classify her bicycle as an imminent hazard, despite detecting an object.^[90] The human safety driver, Rafaela Vasquez, was distracted by a smartphone video and pleaded guilty to endangerment in 2023, while Uber avoided criminal liability following a prosecutorial review that highlighted flaws in both human oversight and algorithmic detection but found no single culpable actor under existing law.^[91]^[92] This incident exemplifies a culpability gap, as the AI's autonomous braking failure shifted focus from direct operator fault to upstream engineering choices, yet neither developers nor the company faced retrospective blame proportional to the harm, complicating deterrence.^[93] In healthcare, black-box AI models for diagnostics amplify public and active responsibility gaps by generating predictions unverifiable by clinicians without access to underlying causal logic, as seen in systems relying on deep neural networks where errors in patient triage or treatment recommendations evade clear attribution.^[94] For instance, opaque algorithms in FDA-approved devices have led to misdiagnoses, but developers cite data limitations while physicians defer to model outputs, eroding incentives for rigorous pre-deployment testing.^[94] Empirical studies indicate such gaps persist even in supervised deployments, with responsibility often defaulting to vague regulatory compliance rather than specific causal accountability.^[95] Debates persist on whether these gaps constitute a novel ethical crisis or an extension of longstanding challenges in complex systems, with critics arguing they undermine societal trust and risk mitigation by obscuring who must bear costs of errors.^[96] Proponents of closing gaps advocate adaptive liability frameworks, such as tracing responsibility to principal designers via negligence standards or imposing strict product liability on deployers, as causal chains in autonomous systems remain human-initiated despite automation.^[97] Others contend gaps are overstated or benign, positing that forward-looking regulations—emphasizing prevention over post-hoc blame—sufficiently distribute burdens without paralyzing innovation, supported by evidence from aviation automation where diffused accountability has not precluded safety advances.^[98]^[99] Empirical data from autonomous vehicle trials, logging over 20 million miles by 2023, reveal incident rates comparable to human drivers but highlight persistent attribution ambiguities in edge cases, underscoring the need for causal realism in assigning liability based on foreseeable risks rather than technological novelty alone.^[100]

Global Issues: Environment and International Obligations

In international environmental law, state responsibility for global issues such as climate change derives from customary principles requiring due diligence to prevent significant transboundary harm, as articulated in cases like the Trail Smelter arbitration and codified in frameworks like the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility.^[101] States bear obligations to regulate activities within their jurisdiction that contribute to atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulation, with attribution complicated by the diffuse, cumulative nature of emissions from fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, and industrial processes.^[102] The 2024 International Court of Justice advisory opinion on climate obligations reinforced that all states must protect the climate system through emissions reductions aligned with the Paris Agreement's goals, imposing positive duties on major emitters regardless of development status.^[103] The principle of common but differentiated responsibilities (CBDR), embedded in the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), posits that all nations share responsibility for anthropogenic climate interference but that developed countries should lead due to their historical emissions and greater economic capacity.^[104] Cumulative CO₂ emissions from 1750 to 2023 attribute approximately 25% of the global total to the United States and 22% to Europe, justifying differentiated burdens, yet current annual emissions—led by China at 13.26 billion metric tons in 2023—underscore shifting dynamics where developing economies now drive net increases.^[105] ^[106] This principle informed the Kyoto Protocol (1997), which imposed binding reduction targets on Annex I (developed) states averaging 5% below 1990 levels for 2008–2012, achieving a 22% average cut in the second commitment period (2013–2020) among participants but failing to halt a 32% global emissions rise from 1990 to 2010 as non-participating nations expanded.^[107] ^[108] The Paris Agreement (2015), ratified by 195 parties, shifted to nationally determined contributions (NDCs) for all states, requiring periodic updates toward limiting warming to well below 2°C, with efforts for 1.5°C, though these pledges remain non-binding and have proven insufficient, with global CO₂ emissions reaching 37.4 billion tonnes in 2023 despite commitments.^[109] ^[110] Enforcement relies on transparency reporting rather than penalties, exposing gaps where high emitters like China and India cite CBDR to prioritize growth over stringent cuts, while developed states face pressure for financial transfers exceeding $100 billion annually to support adaptation in vulnerable nations.^[111] International obligations extend to cooperation on technology transfer and capacity-building, yet empirical assessments indicate persistent free-riding, as aggregate NDCs project 2.5–2.9°C warming by 2100 absent enhanced ambition.^[112] These frameworks highlight tensions between sovereign autonomy and collective accountability, with state responsibility increasingly invoked in litigation to compel compliance.^[113]

References

[1]
Responsibility - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
From 1787, "responsibility" originates from "responsible" + "-ity," meaning the fact or condition of being accountable or answerable, also signifying a ...Missing: philosophical | Show results with:philosophical
[2]
What is Responsibility? | Issue 56 - Philosophy Now
The responsible person has to justify his or her actions: he or she has to be answerable ('responsible' in the narrower sense), i.e. accountable for them.
[3]
THE ROOTS OF RESPONSIBILITY | Think | Cambridge Core
Mar 17, 2022 · The traditional answer goes back to Aristotle. Praise, blame, punishment, and reward, he taught, are all reserved for voluntary conduct.
[4]
Responsibility Beyond Belief: The Epistemic Condition on Moral ...
Two conditions commonly endorsed as requirements for moral responsibility are freedom and knowledge. The person must have acted freely, and they must have known ...Missing: credible | Show results with:credible
[5]
Responsible - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
Originating in the 1640s from obsolete French responsible and Latin respondere meaning "to answer or pledge," accountable means answerable for one's actions ...
[6]
responsibility, n. meanings, etymology and more
The earliest known use of the noun responsibility is in the mid 1600s. OED's earliest evidence for responsibility is from 1642, in the writing of Henry Parker, ...
[7]
From 'Respondere' to 'Responsibility' (Chapter 1) - Theories of ...
Responsibility, derived from 'respondere', means one must answer for their actions, without needing to show fault, and looks to the future.
[8]
Aristotle on Moral Responsibility: Character and Cause
Jan 19, 2012 · This book presents an examination of Aristotle's accounts of voluntariness in the Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics.
[9]
Responsibility - The Information Philosopher
To be responsible for our actions, they must have been caused by something within us, they must "depend on us" (the Greeks called this ἐφ ἡμῖν). Modern "agent- ...
[10]
Aristotle's Ethics and Moral Responsibility | The Philosophical Review
Oct 1, 2015 · Does Aristotle have a conception of moral responsibility? A prominent feature of his treatment of the virtues of character, in both ethical ...
[11]
The Origins of Responsibility - Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews
Jan 12, 2011 · In short, responsibility must be given a history and shown to be a construct. Ultimately, the aim of a genealogy of responsibility is to show ...
[12]
The Origins of Responsibility - Indiana University Press
Exploring responsibility in the works of Nietzsche, Sartre, Levinas, Heidegger, and Derrida, Raffoul identifies decisive moments in the development of the ...
[13]
Moral Responsibility - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Oct 16, 2019 · It's widely held that moral agents can be responsible not just for actions but also for the causal outcomes of their actions. This can be ...Freedom, Responsibility, and... · Some Approaches to Moral...
[14]
Responsibility | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Responsibility. We evaluate people and groups as responsible or not, depending on how seriously they take their responsibilities.Individual Responsibility · Moral versus Legal... · Collective Responsibility
[15]
[PDF] An Anatomy of Moral Responsibility - LSE
Jun 6, 2009 · Moral responsibility is linked to an agent's behavior and the state of affairs. Assigning it in joint actions is difficult, especially in ...
[16]
Gordon Pettit, Conditions of Moral Responsibility - PhilPapers
The conditions of moral responsibility include having the right kind and amount of control over actions, events or states of affairs that are morally ...
[17]
[PDF] A Critique of Aristotle: Countervoluntary Action and Moral Injury
Apr 13, 2023 · Aristotle holds firm to the notion that character is developed through intentional and therefore voluntary action that is reinforced through ...
[18]
Accountability, Rational Control, and the Voluntary in Aristotle
Aristotle · Eudemian Ethics · moral responsibility · Nicomachean Ethics · rational control · voluntary action. Subjects: Philosophy. Issue Date: 2016. Publisher ...
[19]
Kant on Moral Autonomy | The Philosophical Review
Apr 1, 2015 · Autonomy plays an essential role in Kant's practical philosophy ... moral responsibility, political legitimacy, and public policy. It is ...
[20]
[PDF] Moral Autonomy and Radical Evil in the Philosophy of Kant
because it erodes the very basis of moral responsibility: the ascription. 33. Jones, morality ~.!l,d Freedom, P• 136. 34. We shall say more about this in our ...
[21]
"Free Will, Determinism, and Moral Responsibility: An Analysis of ...
In this project, I will analyze, summarize, and critique the incompatibilist theory known as source incompatibilism, which argues that a moral agent is morally ...
[22]
[PDF] Responsibility and the Condition of Moral Sense - PhilPapers
F. Strawson's seminal paper "Freedom and Resentment:'l The key idea in this paper is that the nature and conditions of moral responsibility must be ...
[23]
Behavior Genetics and Attributions of Moral Responsibility - PMC - NIH
Sep 8, 2018 · Some studies suggest that genetic accounts diminish ascriptions of responsibility, but others show no effect.
[24]
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.
[25]
[PDF] Shared responsibility and obligations - PhilArchive
Philosophers who have defended attributions of collective responsibility and blameworthiness have suggested that members of the relevant collectives can share ...
[26]
Who's to Blame? Collective Moral Responsibility and its Implications ...
Jan 21, 2020 · As understood here a collective action occurs when members of a collective act in light of a joint commitment to intend as a body to perform<|control11|><|separator|>
[27]
Collective Responsibility Should be Treated as a Virtue
Oct 18, 2022 · To be collectively responsible, a group must fulfill all three conditions of moral responsibility: epistemic condition, control condition and ...
[28]
[PDF] From Moral Agency to Collective Wrongs: Re - BrooklynWorks
Collective moral responsibility is the moral responsibility of collectives, rather than individuals, for harm, with groups as moral agents.
[29]
The duality of shared responsibility - Taylor & Francis Online
Mar 19, 2018 · The paper argues that shared responsibility is generally regarded as having the potential to address responsibility gaps in situations of concerted action.
[30]
actus reus | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Contrast this with mens rea, which refers to the criminal intent element of a crime. ... Generally, for the purposes of criminal liability, an individual may be ...
[31]
mens rea | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Establishing the mens rea of an offender, in addition to the actus reus (physical elements of the crime) is usually necessary to prove guilt in a criminal trial ...
[32]
Understanding the Basics of Criminal Law | Pittsburgh MSL
Dec 21, 2023 · Actus reus refers to the physical action of the crime. Criminal acts must be voluntary physical actions or omissions. Without actus reus, the ...
[33]
Mens Rea - Penn Carey Law: Legal Scholarship Repository
Mens Rea, or “guilty mind,” marks a central distinguishing feature of criminal law. An injury caused without mens rea might be grounds for civil liability.
[34]
[PDF] Actus Reus-Mens Rea Memo (Professor Jim Tomkovicz)
Jul 3, 2008 · The basic rule is that there is no criminal liability without a guilty act. This rule means first that no one is punishable for his or her ...<|separator|>
[35]
tort | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Negligent torts occur when the defendant's actions were unreasonably unsafe. Unlike intentional and negligent torts, strict liability torts do not depend on the ...Negligence · Liability · Tort damages · Mass tort litigation
[36]
Fundamentals of Tort Law - National Paralegal College
Torts may be either (1) intentional, (2) negligent, or (3) in strict liability. The word “tort” means “wrong”, and originally evolved from the writs of trespass ...
[37]
strict liability | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of their intent or mental state when committing the action.
[38]
Introduction to Tort Law | Congress.gov
May 26, 2023 · One prominent example of a strict liability tort is products liability, which permits a plaintiff injured by a defective product to recover ...
[39]
The Difference between Torts and Crimes - GeorgiaLegalAid.org
Criminal law is not concerned with the individual victim. The law of torts, on the other hand, provides a way to compensate victims of wrongful acts. In reality ...
[40]
The Distinctions Between Tort and Criminal Law | DuBoff & Associates
Jun 13, 2023 · Intentional torts are often mistaken for crimes since they sometimes align with criminal conduct. However, if an injured individual decides to ...
[41]
"Actus Reus, Mens Rea, and Brain Science: What Do Volition and ...
The foundational elements of criminal law, actus reus and mens rea, are vague, imprecise, and indeterminate categories that are based on outdated notions ...
[42]
respondeat superior | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
A court will choose to apply the doctrine of respondeat superior to an employer, regardless of how closely the employer was monitoring the employee. As such, ...
[43]
[PDF] Organizational Liability and the Tension between Corporate and ...
Corporate criminal liability has become, over the years, one of the most important of these mechanisms because it stems not only from theories of restraint, but ...
[44]
[PDF] Respondeat Superior - Santa Clara Law Digital Commons
Jan 1, 1990 · This Comment first presents an historical background on the doctrine of respondeat superior including the current treatment of the scope of ...
[45]
[PDF] Reformulating Vicarious Liability in Terms of Basic Tort Doctrine ...
May 2, 2024 · The most common form of vicarious liability subjects an employer (or principal) to liability for the torts an employee (agent) commits ...
[46]
Corporate Criminal Liability - Office of Justice Programs
The standard of corporate liability adopted by the Model Penal Code of the American Law Institute provides that a corporation may be convicted of a crime if ...
[47]
Model Penal Code (MPC) - Penn Law School
Liability of Corporations, Unincorporated Associations and Persons Acting, or Under a Duty to Act, in Their Behalf. (1) A corporation may be convicted of the ...
[48]
The “Responsible Corporate Officer Doctrine” Survives to Perplex ...
Jul 5, 2017 · The RCOD is a controversial strict liability theory interpreted by the government as permitting (in certain circumstances) the prosecution of corporate ...<|separator|>
[49]
piercing the corporate veil | Wex - Law.Cornell.Edu
Piercing the corporate veil is when courts hold shareholders or directors personally liable for a corporation's actions, usually due to serious misconduct.
[50]
[PDF] A Standard for Imposing Corporate Criminal Liability
The American Law Institute's Model Penal Code (MPC) provides the major alternative standard for corporate criminal liability currently found in American ...
[51]
Personal Agency - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Personal agency is the confidence in one's ability to perform behaviors, including the ability to initiate and direct actions toward defined goals.
[52]
[PDF] THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BUILDING BLOCKS OF AGENCY
Mar 1, 2025 · The psychological components of agency include efficacy, optimism, imagination, prospection, mentalizing, counterfactual thinking, and ...
[53]
What Is the Sense of Agency and Why Does it Matter? - PMC
Aug 29, 2016 · Sense of agency is the feeling of control over actions and their consequences, feeling like you are in charge of your actions.
[54]
Locus of Control Theory In Psychology: Internal vs External
Aug 14, 2023 · Research has shown that people with an internal locus of control tend to be less conforming and obedient (i.e., more independent). Rotter ...
[55]
Internal locus of control and individuals' regret for normal vs ...
In three experimental studies, we find support for the prediction that higher internal locus of control individuals regret more a decision taken against ( ...
[56]
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43621-025-02018-7
[57]
[PDF] Bandura (2006) Towards a psychology of human agency
Social cognitive theory distinguishes among three modes of agency: individual, proxy, and collective. Everyday functioning requires an agentic blend of these ...<|separator|>
[58]
Academic self-efficacy: from educational theory to instructional practice
The self-efficacy component of Bandura's social-cognitive theory has had a profound impact on the study of motivation and achievement in academic settings.
[59]
the mediating role of causal attribution and self-efficacy - Frontiers
Jul 10, 2023 · Bandura believes that self-efficacy can affect behavior through cognition, motivation, emotion and selectivity (Bandura, 1993). Specifically ...Introduction · Materials and methods · Results · Discussion
[60]
The Impact of Locus of Control on Individual Performance for ...
Aug 4, 2025 · Our results conclude that locus of control positively related to the individual work performance. Individual employees with higher internal ...
[61]
Agency Is the Highest Level of Personal Competence
Mar 27, 2022 · Agency is a mindset and actions to attain goals, including forethought, implementation, self-management, and learning/adapting, and is the ...
[62]
Locus of control, self-control, and health outcomes - PMC - NIH
We study the link between locus of control, self-control, and health outcomes. A greater internal locus of control is associated with higher self-control.
[63]
Locus of Control and Self-Responsibility for Behavior - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · This study investigated the changes in locus of control orientations that may result from training in self-regulating procedures to control ...
[64]
Beyond self-serving bias: diffusion of responsibility reduces sense of ...
This EEG study investigated whether diffusion of responsibility simply reflects a post-hoc self-serving bias, or rather has direct effects on how we process ...
[65]
From Empathy to Apathy: The Bystander Effect Revisited - PMC - NIH
Three psychological factors are thought to facilitate bystander apathy: the feeling of having less responsibility when more bystanders are present (diffusion of ...
[66]
Social relations and presence of others predict bystander intervention
Half a century of research on the “bystander effect” suggests that the more bystanders present at an emergency, the less likely each of them is to provide help.
[67]
[PDF] Research Article Diffusion of responsibility in group work: Social ...
Dec 13, 2020 · (2020). Diffusion of responsibility in group work: Social loafing. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 4(3), 344-. 358.
[68]
Public self-awareness leads to a reversal of the bystander effect
Results from both studies indicate that, as expected, the bystander effect can be reversed by means of cues that raise public self-awareness in social settings.Missing: criticisms | Show results with:criticisms
[69]
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 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[70]
Structural and individualistic theories of poverty - Compass Hub
Oct 18, 2018 · This paper clarifies and contrasts the explanatory mechanisms in individualistic and structural accounts of poverty.INDIVIDUALISTIC VIEWS OF... · MACRO-STRUCTURAL... · SITUATIONAL...Missing: longitudinal | Show results with:longitudinal
[71]
Personal Responsibility, Not Victimhood, Is the Path to Success - AEI
Jan 7, 2023 · This path is called the “Success Sequence,” and black and Hispanic young adults who have followed it are markedly more likely to be flourishing financially ...
[72]
Success Sequence: A Synthesis of the Literature
Jan 12, 2021 · It refers to a series of milestones in life that are associated with escaping poverty and joining the middle class.
[73]
The Success Sequence: Rethinking Poverty Prevention - Ascend
Dec 12, 2023 · If youth adopt these behaviors, in sequence, as a millennial, they risk only a 3% chance of living in poverty as adults, versus a 53% chance if they adopt none ...
[74]
The Power of the Success Sequence - AEI
May 26, 2022 · The formula involves three steps: get at least a high school education, work full time, and marry before having children.Missing: empirical reduction
[75]
Socioeconomic status and genetic influences on cognitive ... - NIH
Nov 13, 2017 · Twin studies in behavioral genetics typically identify the genetic contribution to an outcome's variance using the difference in genetic ...
[76]
Heritability of class and status: Implications for sociological theory ...
The results suggest that the variability in class and status attainment is influenced by genetics to a non-negligible degree, while shared environmental factors ...
[77]
The high heritability of educational achievement reflects many ...
We conclude that the high heritability of educational achievement reflects many genetically influenced traits, not just intelligence.Results · Bivariate Genetic Analyses · Methods
[78]
Thomas Sowell: Is Personal Responsibility Obsolete? Part I
Jun 6, 2016 · Milton Friedman's plan for a negative income tax to help the poor has already been put into practice. It didn't work as hoped, writes Thomas Sowell.
[79]
Thomas Sowell's Inconvenient Truths - Claremont Review of Books
When economist Thomas Sowell sees disparities, he, like Ibram Kendi, sees bias driven by hatred or ignorance. Unlike Kendi, however, Sowell sees other causes ...
[80]
[PDF] Who Needs Individual Responsibility? Audience Race and Message ...
Aug 26, 2016 · '' The current research examines perceptions of racial differ- ences in propensities to blame individuals versus systems and the downstream ...
[81]
The Rise of the Culture of Victimhood Explained - Reason Magazine
Sep 8, 2015 · The US is now transitioning to a victimhood culture that combines both the honor culture's quickness to take offense with the dignity culture's use of third ...
[82]
Victimhood culture explains what is happening at Emory - HxA
Mar 26, 2016 · But the rise of microaggression complaints suggests a new direction in the evolution of moral culture. C) A Culture of Victimhood.
[83]
Unraveling the Mindset of Victimhood - Scientific American
Jun 29, 2020 · An ongoing feeling that the self is a victim, which is generalized across many kinds of relationships. As a result, victimization becomes a central part of the ...
[84]
'Why Me?' The Role of Perceived Victimhood in American Politics
Jan 2, 2021 · ... cultural) victim to think and behave as a “real” victim ... Instead, a systemic victim looks externally to understand her individual victimhood.
[85]
[PDF] Consequences of Welfare Reform: A Research Synthesis
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program ...
[86]
The Real Victims of Victimhood | American Enterprise Institute - AEI
Dec 26, 2015 · To begin with, victimhood makes it more and more difficult for us to resolve political and social conflicts. The culture feeds a mentality that ...
[87]
Four Responsibility Gaps with Artificial Intelligence: Why they Matter ...
May 14, 2021 · The responsibility gap, it is argued, is not one problem but a set of at least four interconnected problems – gaps in culpability, moral and public ...
[88]
Tragic Choices and the Virtue of Techno-Responsibility Gaps - PMC
There is a concern that the widespread deployment of autonomous machines will open up a number of 'responsibility gaps' throughout society.
[89]
Responsibility Gaps - Da Silva - 2024 - Compass Hub - Wiley
Oct 11, 2024 · Responsibility gaps arise when there is a mismatch between the amount of responsibility that can be attributed to any person or collection of persons.1 Introduction · 3 The Phenomenon · 6 Responses<|separator|>
[90]
Uber self-driving car test driver pleads guilty to endangerment ... - CNN
Jul 29, 2023 · Rafaela Vasquez was watching television on her smartphone in March 2018 when the Uber self-driving vehicle fatally struck Elaine Herzberg, 49, ...
[91]
Driver Charged in Uber's Fatal 2018 Autonomous Car Crash
Dec 7, 2020 · A safety driver who was riding in an autonomous Uber vehicle when it struck and killed a pedestrian on a street in Tempe, Ariz., in 2018 has been charged with ...
[92]
Who Is Responsible In A Crash With A Self-Driving Car? - Forbes
Feb 6, 2020 · The blame was divided between the safety driver, Uber, the self-driving car, the victim, and the state of Arizona.
[93]
Artificial intelligence and responsibility gaps: what is the problem?
Aug 24, 2022 · ... responsibility gaps may plausibly emerge when autonomous systems are used. Second, they must explain why the existence of such gaps is ...
[94]
Responsibility Gaps and Black Box Healthcare AI - NIH
Nov 16, 2023 · Responsibility gaps occur when AI automates human tasks and errors, creating a chasm in assigning blame. Black box AI generates these gaps.
[95]
Find the Gap: AI, Responsible Agency and Vulnerability - PMC
Jun 5, 2024 · The responsibility gap, commonly described as a core challenge for the effective governance of, and trust in, AI and autonomous systems (AI/AS),
[96]
Responsibility Gaps and Technology: Old Wine in New Bottles?
Sep 12, 2024 · In this article we argue that one important, and often neglected, feature of recent debates on responsibility gaps is how this debate maps on to old debates in ...The Key Fault Line in... · Navigating the Terrain of... · Looking Backwards to Go...
[97]
What responsibility gaps are and what they should be
Feb 26, 2025 · Responsibility gaps traditionally refer to scenarios in which no one is responsible for harm caused by artificial agents, such as autonomous machines or ...
[98]
AI responsibility gap: not new, inevitable, unproblematic
Dec 19, 2024 · While some authors argue that responsibility gaps exist, and they're morally problematic, some argue that they don't exist. In this paper, I ...
[99]
AI and Responsibility: No Gap, but Abundance - Wiley Online Library
Sep 12, 2024 · For this reason, scholars worry that the use of AI would lead to so-called responsibility gaps, that is, situations in which no one is morally ...ABSTRACT · Introduction · Applying Strict Moral... · Re-Interpreting the Challenge...<|separator|>
[100]
Identifying AI Hazards and Responsibility Gaps - IEEE Xplore
Mar 17, 2025 · Resulting TAIHA analyses suggest responsibility gaps are emerging in the self-driving car community in the US where humans, either unknowingly ...<|separator|>
[101]
[PDF] Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001)
The conduct of any State organ shall be considered an act of that State under international law, whether the organ exercises legislative, executive, judicial or ...
[102]
The International Court of Justice confirms the obligations and ...
Sep 25, 2025 · States have an obligation to act with “due diligence” to protect the climate system from the harmful effects of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, ...
[103]
State Responsibility and the ICJ's Advisory Opinion on Climate ...
Aug 7, 2025 · In applying the law of State responsibility, the ICJ pronounced on several aspects arising from the “unprecedented nature and scale of harm ...
[104]
The Explainer: The Paris Agreement - UNFCCC
Feb 26, 2021 · The agreement adheres to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities,” which means that while there's a duty on all countries ...
[105]
Cumulative CO₂ emissions - Our World in Data
Cumulative CO₂ emissions are total emissions within a country's borders, excluding land-use change, measured in tonnes, since 1750-2023. International aviation ...
[106]
CO₂ Emissions by Country 2025 - World Population Review
China has the highest overall level of CO₂ emissions, producing 13.260 gigatons (13.26 billion tons or 13,260 million tons) of CO₂ emissions in 2023, followed ...
[107]
Emission Reductions under the Kyoto Protocol Pave the Way for ...
Jul 19, 2024 · Developed countries participating in the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period (2013–2020) achieved an average annual emissions reduction of 22% compared ...
[108]
Success or failure? The Kyoto Protocol's troubled legacy - Foresight
Dec 8, 2022 · The Kyoto Protocol had failed to stem the flow of global emissions. Still further, the Kyoto Protocol failed to equate emissions reductions ...
[109]
The Paris Agreement | UNFCCC
The Paris Agreement is a legally binding international treaty on climate change. It was adopted by 195 Parties at the UN Climate Change Conference (COP21) in ...
[110]
[PDF] CO2 Emissions in 2023 - NET
Global energy-related CO2 emissions grew by 1.1% in 2023, increasing. 410 million tonnes (Mt) to reach a new record high of 37.4 billion tonnes. (Gt). This ...
[111]
Global Climate Agreements: Successes and Failures
Through the Kyoto Protocol and Paris Agreement, countries agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere keeps ...Introduction · What are the most important... · What progress have countries...
[112]
Key aspects of the Paris Agreement | UNFCCC
The Paris Agreement requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through “nationally determined contributions” (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts ...
[113]
Success of the Paris Agreement hinges on the credibility of national ...
Sep 30, 2022 · Under the terms of the agreement, each country pledges its own commitments to control emissions, which are not binding under international law.