Responsibility – a Philosophical View

At its core, the philosophy of rights and responsibilities asks a simple but powerful question: What are individuals entitled to, and what do they owe to others? They are two sides of the same moral coin, are inseparable linked and need to be discussed together. However, this introduction here will focus mostly on Responsibility.

What are responsibilities?
Responsibilities are the obligations individuals have toward others, society, or themselves. There are:
· Moral – to act ethically, avoid harm, tell the truth
· Civic – voting, obeying laws, contributing to the community
· Social – respecting others’ rights, participating in society
· Personal – self-care, self-improvement, accountability

Purpose:
The main purpose of responsibilities is to ensure that rights can exist in practice, not just in theory.

Taken responsibility for yourself and your family enables us to function adequately and with this allow for best possible adaptation to a challenging world. This is the theory. So why are some struggling to act responsible?

It is a fact that responsibilities or duties come to a personal charge in the form of effort, time, energy spend, uncertainty of outcome and opportunistic costs. For this reason, there is a motivational struggle to act responsible and some individuals might want to avoid responsibilities altogether. Is this the only reason? Let’s discuss.

Socially we admire people who take great responsibility, intuitively or otherwise we know about what it takes to master a responsible life. Do we see the advantage?

What it takes to act responsible:
In order to act responsibly, one needs to have agency, which is the capacity to act intentionally and cannot be forced. Furthermore, it is required to possess accountability (being answerable for one’s actions) and have moral obligations (duties toward others, society or oneself). Further conditions which need to be met are the possession of knowledge (we must understand what we are doing) and control (we must have the ability to act differently).

Philosophical views
The above requirements for responsibility hint us to diverse philosophical views on the topic. Having agency in its full extend requires Free Will, which is a debatable concept and either fully or partially rejected by deterministic viewpoints. All actions are caused; responsibility is questionable. The Libertarian Free Will view states, we have genuine freedom; responsibility is real. Compatibilism says, even if the world is determined, responsibility still makes sense.

How we as a society view Free Will and with this the ability to act responsible determines our cultural norms, laws and regulations, e.g. criminal law which is based on conscious intend. A criminal act in its core is an act of failing responsibility. However, some conditions exempt the bearer from his/her responsibility according to modern worldviews.

· Arthur Schopenhauer: Schopenhauer believed that responsibility exists, but not in the everyday sense of freely choosing our actions. Instead, he argued that our actions are determined by motives and our fixed character, and responsibility lies in our deeper, intelligible nature rather than in moment-to-moment choices. Ethics and responsibility are grounded in compassion and the recognition of shared will. Ethics and responsibility are grounded in compassion and the recognition of shared will. Punishment is metaphysical: suffering follows wrongdoing as a natural consequence, not as an external imposition.

· Friedrich Nietzsche saw responsibility as inseparable from freedom: to be free is to take responsibility for oneself, not to rely on external moral systems or metaphysical notions of free will. He rejected traditional ideas of responsibility tied to divine judgment or absolute moral law, but he emphasised personal accountability in affirming one’s life and choices.

· Thomas Sowell consistently emphasised that personal responsibility is essential for both individual success and the health of society. He warned against policies and attitudes that encourage people to escape accountability for their own actions. Sowell believed that responsibility is non-negotiable: no group or individual should be excused from the basic demands of civilized life. Responsibility is tied to freedom and accountability: without individuals bearing the consequences of their choices, liberty itself becomes fragile. He often criticized intellectuals and policymakers who promoted excuses instead of standards, leading to social decay.

Questions
What makes us responsible?
Why are some more responsible than others?
When is a person truly responsible for what they do?
When is it acceptable not to take responsibility?
What are the consequences for not being held responsible, e.g. a non-responsible upbringing?
Is our society involuntarily encouraging irresponsibility? If so, why?
Can entire nations be held responsible and accountable for matters of the past?