Moral and Legal Responsibility in Biomatrix Summary of different senses of responsibility

Reactive Senses of Responsibility Causal – Physical motions produce an event Role – individual stands committed to carry out common goods around which a social or professional role is oriented Capacity – Determining the conditions under which someone can be held responsible for their actions Blame – Praising or blaming someone for what they have done

Criminal (Legal) Responsibility Mens Rea – Gulity state of mind or intention to do wrong Actus Reus – Wrongful action(s) Connection between Mens Rea and Actus Reus – Guilty action caused by guilty state of mind. (Not just wish fulfilment) Burden of Proof: beyond a reasonable doubt Interested Party: society has an interest in punishing and thereby deterring violation of criminal laws Target: Human beings who have “a body to kick and a soul to damn”

Civil (Legal) Responsibility Violations of Contract Torts or wrongful injury Standard of Evidence: To prove a tort one must prove… – Negligence – Recklessness Interested Party: A tort seeks to make the victim (=one who suffers wrongful injury) whole Burden of Proof: preponderance of evidence (the decision goes to whoever has the most support from the evidence)

O.J. Simpson Lost civil trial because the preponderance of evidence said he killed Nicole Brown Simpson – Paid $ to survivors of Nicole Brown Simpson Won the criminal trial because the prosecution could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed Nicole Brown Simpson – Society, the interested party in this lawsuit, failed to make its case given the standard of evidence

Capacity Responsibility Conditions of imputability for praising and blaming

Capacity Responsibility Conditions of Imputability are… – Conditions that connect an agent with an action for moral evaluation One is capacity responsible when one is… – …capable of acting voluntarily and knowingly in a given situation

Acting Voluntarily… When we act voluntarily, we act without compulsion Compulsion is the “production of a state of mind or body independently of the will” (F. H. Bradley) – Overwhelming fear compels me (Luca Brazi: either your brains or your signature will be on that contract) – Physical force: when somebody pushes me, they create a state of body—my falling toward the floor—which runs contrary to my actual will (to remain standing)

Acting knowingly… Acting knowingly means acting free from two kinds of ignorance: – General (Moral) Ignorance (Not being able to appreciate the moral quality of my actions) – Specific Ignorance (Not knowing important details in the situation in which I am acting)

General Ignorance A broad ability to appreciate the moral quality of my actions that includes… – bringing moral concepts, rules, and principles to bear on the situation (social injustice of windmill public hearings) – responding in an emotionally appropriate way to the situation (anger and indignation at attempt to exclude from process) – shaping one’s actions in accordance with moral understanding and moral emotion (opposing injustice through social activism / whistleblowing)

Specific Ignorance One fails to act responsibly in a situation because one lacks crucially relevant situational details – I betray my sister’s secret – But I didn’t know that it was in fact a secret – My ignorance of that crucial detail relieves me of responsibility in this situation (ignorance = excuse)

Not satisfying the knowledge and volitional conditions allows for excuses Condition—Performing the action knowingly – Excuse—I didn’t know what I was doing or I couldn’t appreciate the moral quality of what I was doing Condition—Performing the action voluntarily – Excuse—He (Luca Brasi) made me do it (I couldn’t have done otherwise)

Exception for Excuses What past conditions produced ignorance or compulsion? I am responsible for what I do under ignorance and under compulsion if I got myself into the excuse- generating situations in the first place Examples: – My ignorance was caused by past negligence (I didn’t know but I should have known) – My being compelled was caused by past recklessness (I didn’t drink responsibly)

The Dark Side of Responsibility Bandura’s studies on how individuals attempt to evade responsibility for their actions

Biomatrix and Defusing Responsibility From trial transcripts – Q. But you have no proof that the company has ties to organized crime, correct? – A. Correct – Q. And you’ve never had any proof to suggest that the company had ties to organized crime, correct? – A. Correct. – Q. You’ve never taken any steps to substantiate whether or not the company had ties to organized crime, correct? – A. Correct. I’m not a police officer. (moral justification and advantageous comparisons) – See Richard Dep. pp. 210: :2. “Richard testified that it is “irrelevant” to him how people interpret his posts because they are made in a Yahoo! Chat room (=euphemistic labelling). Can’t she take a joke (in reference to accusing Biomatrix VP of sexual harassment) (=blaming the victim) – See Richard Dep., p. 193: : 22.

Mapping actions onto Bandura’s Framework Ways in which Biomatrix Police displaced or defused responsibility for their online actions: Minimizing, ignoring, or misconstruing bad consequences? Blaming the victim – They can’t take a joke Moral justification or euphemistic labeling – This is not wrong in the Internet – We were just joking or flaming