Responsibility Voids

Matthew Braham; Martin Van Hees

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.677.x

Responsibility Voids

Matthew Braham
, Martin Van Hees

Moral and Political Philosophy

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

Abstract We present evidence for the existence of ‘responsibility voids’ in committee decision-making, that is, the existence of situations where no member of a committee can individually be held morally responsible for the outcome. We analyse three types of reasons (causal, normative and epistemic) for the emergence of responsibility voids, and show that each of them can occur in committees. But the conditions for these voids are so restrictive as to reduce the philosophical or institutional significance they might be thought to possess.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	6-15
Number of pages	10
Journal	Philosophical Quarterly
Volume	61
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.677.x
Publication status	Published - Jan 2011

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

SDG 16 Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

Access to Document

10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.677.x

http://www.mendeley.com/research/responsibility-voids

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

@article{ad10b68ee3e7493e8860471e70ed4ca3,

title = "Responsibility Voids",

abstract = "Abstract We present evidence for the existence of {\textquoteleft}responsibility voids{\textquoteright} in committee decision-making, that is, the existence of situations where no member of a committee can individually be held morally responsible for the outcome. We analyse three types of reasons (causal, normative and epistemic) for the emergence of responsibility voids, and show that each of them can occur in committees. But the conditions for these voids are so restrictive as to reduce the philosophical or institutional significance they might be thought to possess.",

author = "Matthew Braham and \{Van Hees\}, Martin",

year = "2011",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.677.x",

language = "English",

volume = "61",

pages = "6--15",

journal = "Philosophical Quarterly",

issn = "0031-8094",

publisher = "Oxford University Press",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Responsibility Voids

AU - Braham, Matthew

AU - Van Hees, Martin

PY - 2011/1

Y1 - 2011/1

N2 - Abstract We present evidence for the existence of ‘responsibility voids’ in committee decision-making, that is, the existence of situations where no member of a committee can individually be held morally responsible for the outcome. We analyse three types of reasons (causal, normative and epistemic) for the emergence of responsibility voids, and show that each of them can occur in committees. But the conditions for these voids are so restrictive as to reduce the philosophical or institutional significance they might be thought to possess.

AB - Abstract We present evidence for the existence of ‘responsibility voids’ in committee decision-making, that is, the existence of situations where no member of a committee can individually be held morally responsible for the outcome. We analyse three types of reasons (causal, normative and epistemic) for the emergence of responsibility voids, and show that each of them can occur in committees. But the conditions for these voids are so restrictive as to reduce the philosophical or institutional significance they might be thought to possess.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/78650630831

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/78650630831#tab=citedBy

U2 - 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.677.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1467-9213.2010.677.x

M3 - Article

SN - 0031-8094

VL - 61

SP - 6

EP - 15

JO - Philosophical Quarterly

JF - Philosophical Quarterly

ER -

Responsibility Voids

Abstract

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this