A mans ethical behavior should be based effectively on sympathy, education and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death -- Albert Einstein (1879-1955) We live as if the world were as it should be, to show what it can be 1
Causal Responsibility
A purely descriptive sense of responsibility The heavy rain is responsible for the flooding The operator was responsible for turning off the control switch The But-For conception of being causally responsible: X was causally responsible for Y = But for the occurrence of X, Y would not have happened For Example: But for the operator turning the switch, the control would not have went off
4
Strict Liability
It means that no excusing conditions are applicable or accepted Responsibility without fault Strict Products Liability Part of the debate about legal liability concerns where the line should be drawn when assigning strict liability
6
Role Responsibility
Role-Responsibility: Whenever a person occupies a distinctive place or office in a Social organization, to which specific duties are attachedhe or she is properly said to be responsible for the performance of these duties, or for doing what is necessary to fulfill them. Such duties are a persons (role) responsibilities.
10
Role Mapping
Without a way to effectively connect the various responsibilities that people in organizations have with their roles in the organization, accountability may not be able to be established and this can allow people to avoid responsibility for their decisions and/or their actions Role Mapping techniques are essential in order to ensure appropriate matching of roles and responsibilities across the organization. Role Mapping-who does what in terms of roles; what is each persons commitment/promise of performance and how does it contribute to overall organizational results. This includes:
Clarify organizational goals and objectives Identify every employees personal accountability for both results and values Measure performance of both the organization and every employee
13
Role Mapping
Clarifies unexpected complexity, problem areas, redundancy, unnecessary loops, and tasks where simplification and standardization may be possible; Helps identifies roles and responsibilities, thus supporting more effective allocation of staff resources and more effective stakeholder partnerships
14
Moral Responsibility
To say a person is responsible in this sense is to say that the person is deserving of blame. This sense of "responsible" seems to imply fault. That is, when we say people are responsible in this sense we are evaluating their behavior relative to some principle or standard. Those responsible in this evaluative sense may also be responsible in one of the other senses of the term
an assessment of responsibility in one of the first three senses is often the basis for attributing responsibility in this fourth sense
Moral Responsibility: Accountability for the actions one performs and the consequences they bring about, for which a moral agent could be justly punished or rewarded. It is commonly held to require the agent's freedom to have done otherwise (autonomy). Moral responsibility is a normative notionit involves an evaluation Connected to other concepts such as duty, obligation, knowledge, freedom, choice, accountability, agency, praise, blame, intention, pride, guilt, shame, conscience, and character
15
Assignment of responsibility is not an all or nothing affair individuals can be assigned various degrees of responsibility based on a variety of influencing factors
17
(1) That the subject had some role to play in the particular chain of events (2) That the person was competent to understand their role in the chain of events, and that their competency is relevant to the issue at hand (3) That the person act voluntarily, and if not, what precluded or diminished their capacity to act voluntarily? (4) That the person was able to influence the chain of events, and if not, what precluded or diminished their capacity to influence the chain of events? (5) That the person was aware of the effects of their actions and knew about the results and their own power of influence or lack of power (6) Related concepts: Rationality, Freedom, Intentionality, Autonomy
18
A Reasonable Care Model of Professional Responsibility (1) As a member of a profession taking on a specific role in a large organization (corporation, government), E has a duty to conform to the standard operating procedures of his or her profession as well as fulfilling all of the responsibilities which are attached to that particular role within the organization.
At time t, decision or action (X) conforms to the standard of reasonable care and of role responsibility as defined in (1)
E omits to execute decision or action (X) at time t (culpable ignorance may be relevant here) Harm (H) is caused to some person or group of persons (P) as a result of Es failure (f) to decide or do X (HP = EfX)
19
Instances of coercion and constraint may exempt agents from judgments of moral responsibility Coercion and constraint mean the imposition of some external force that compels or precludes a particular choice or a particular action itself Consideration of the form and degree of external force imposed can affect the extent to which one considers an action to have been less than voluntary or non-voluntary Principle: the greater the threat imposed by some external source, the more it eliminates freedom of choice The more freedom of choice is eliminated, the less voluntary actions become Some threats reduce the voluntariness of an actions by making any other choice extremely difficulty for an individual to make in the face of the relevant threat The greater the coercion or constraint, the less likely we will consider the action voluntary and the less moral responsibility we will assign to the agent One often can be excused from being held responsible for an action if the moral agent was coerced or forced to perform the action contrary or against the agents free will
21
Limited: Applies only to specific People at specific times or places Divisible: It can be delegated or distributed It can be waived: Sometimes not applicable, implemented or enforced Punishable
22
Accountability
Responsibility and blameworthiness are only a part of what is covered when we apply the robust and intuitive notion of accountability When we say someone is accountable for a harm, we may also mean that he or she is liable to punishment (e.g., must pay a fine, be censured by a professional organization, go to jail), or is liable to compensate a victim (usually by paying damages). In most actual cases these different strands of responsibility, censure, and compensation converge because those who are to blame for harms are usually those who must pay in some way or other for them.
24
individuality, personhood
26
Recklessness
Blameworthy Negligence Incompetence Human Actions/Behavior
27
Malice: to set out on a course of action with the deliberate aim of imposing harm or risks to people Recklessness: to act knowing that it will cause harm or risk, but not taking this properly into account Negligence: the failure to exercise in the given circumstances that degree of care for the safety of others which a reasonable person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances Incompetence: not qualified or suited for a purpose; showing lack of skill or aptitude; "a bungling workman"; "did a clumsy job"; "his fumbling attempt to put up a shelf" Competence: qualified or suited for a purpose; showing appropriate skill or aptitude Due Diligence: the exercise in the given circumstances that degree of care for the safety of others which a reasonable person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances Dutiful: to know what the right thing to do is and to do it regardless of how it effects you Supererogatory behavior: going above and beyond the call of duty
28
Accountability
Implies imminence of retribution for unfulfilled trust or violated obligations The focus is more upon what others expect from the person who is accountable Other-Centered Includes judgment and the extent of judgment for the success or failure to do, complete, or protect that for which a person is held accountable Accountability always assumes a prior responsibility for we always lay out what we expect before we can lay out what the consequences will be for failure to 30 meet the expectations
Accountability
Liable to be called to account; answerable Refers to how the individual will be judged and thus either rewarded or punished A person is accountable only when we know they have to answer to being punished If someone is accountable, it is assumed a responsible party be able to meet the demands of the higher authority to whom they will give their accounting Accountability focuses for the most part upon all of the elements of duty after the decision is made When accountable one is duty bound externally or one imposes a much stronger duty upon themselves to answer to any actions which may cause harm or damage to those they are accountable for
31
Accountability
Accountability: "Ill pay a price if I dont do it right." Required to explain or justify all of the reasons for ones actions Accepting personal liability for ones actions, accepting ones actions and the consequences
When we know that we must answer with respect to how well we accomplished the task and what reward or punishment was meted out for failing at the task
32
34
CULPABLE IGNORANCE Culpable ignorance when one fails to know something that they should have known Culpable ignorance an individual rejects or avoids knowledge they should be aware of. This can result from laziness, incompetence, or intention Culpable Ignorance can be either direct or indirect
Direct voluntary ignorance is when one decides to not know it is done deliberately Indirect voluntary ignorance is when one could/should have known but remained in ignorance it was done without due diligence
Due diligence taking care to make sure you learn something that you should know
38
CULPABLE IGNORANCE
Culpable ignorance is a case where ignorance of the facts surrounding a situation does not diminish the responsibility of the moral agent for unwanted or immoral outcomes of an action. This is usually because some degree of due diligence or reasonable care has not been taken by the agent in question. Due diligence means that the agent in question failed to do know something that they could be reasonably expected to know and this led to the performance of the immoral act.
For example, a doctor kills a patient by administering penicillin to a patient that is allergic. The doctor was unaware of the allergy because they had failed to investigate the patients history.
CULPABLE IGNORANCE
Culpable ignorance is a case where ignorance of the facts surrounding a situation does not diminish the responsibility of the moral agent for unwanted or immoral outcomes of an action. Even though the agent acted in good faith at the time, we say that they should have known better or they should have realised what they were doing and so they are still blameworthy for the immoral outcomes of their action, even though these outcomes were not intended. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence. You were capable of knowing something, and you should have taken pains to come to know it. One is said to be culpably ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one's lack of effort to clear up the ignorance
40
Culpable Ignorance
What is the difference between culpable and nonculpable ignorance? The criterion for determining culpable ignorance, is if harm is likely to result and the agent could have found out about the likely circumstances of the action We should be expected to know in general what kinds of effects will result from familiar types of actions, even if we cant predict the exact details For example, there is an historical record of humanmade disasters, and the causes of them can be determined and understood by identifying general categories of belief and action, as well as design and technical breakdown of engineered systems The SHOT model is an example of this
41
Culpable Ignorance
Some things are unpredictable in detail, but are familiar enough that one would be culpable not to expect them if they fit into our categorical scheme SHOT Those who perform actions that have potentially disastrous consequences can be morally culpable even if they cannot foresee the specific consequences They are culpable because experience has shown that one should expect certain kinds of events In general, we have an ethical duty to find out what the likely effects of our actions are
42
Culpable Ignorance
In considering culpable ignorance, typically one is concerned with ignorance of fact. But there is also another type of culpable ignorance called ignorance of moral principle. One can fail to know what one ought to do in a particular case.
One can fail to know some general moral rule. One can fail to know that people have certain rights; or that one has certain responsibilities
An omission may be culpable on account of some special position of role or other responsibility held by the agent
43
Ignorance Excuse
Is it possible to know? Could we, or should we have known? Would a reasonable person considered the possibility? If not: excusable ignorance If impossible for us to know: invincible ignorance Lack of Freedom Excuse Four conditions: No alternatives: not even lack of action Lack of control: External coercion: force Internal coercion: Illness, passion, uncontrollable psychological compulsion, etc.
44
Theory of Negligence
Negligence has come to define the expected standard of conduct replacing, for some people, ideas of honor, propriety, and simple right and wrong No case of actionable negligence will arise unless the duty to be careful exists A person is considered negligent or careless if they do not exercise the kind of due care that is appropriate to the particular situation in question Negligent omission: failing to act when the person has a duty to act
45
Negligence
The law of negligence imposes a duty to think before you act. The ordinary care standard imposes a social standard which is judged by members of the community who may or may not agree with your evaluation of your own conduct. Therefore, it is important to look at your acts and omissions from the stand point of others in the community who will be judging your conduct. If you have negligence concerns, ask: 1. What would members of the community require me to do under these circumstances; 2. What would members of the community forbid me to do under these circumstances; 3. What would members of my profession/vocation/calling require of me under these circumstances; 4. What would members of my profession/vocation/calling counsel me to avoid under these circumstances; 5. What are the risks of my conduct, considering the probability of harm and the degree of injury or damage that would result if an accident occurred; and 6. Would ordinary people in the community believe that I am taking reasonable risks?
46
Proving Negligence
Negligence is 'conduct which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm' [4]. In order to establish liability for damage, the courts analyze the following four elements: duty breach proximate cause damages.
47
Proving Negligence
Negligence: the injured party (plaintiff) must prove: a) that the party alleged to be negligent had a duty to the injured party-specifically to the one injured or to the general public, b) that the defendant's action (or failure to act) was negligent-not what a reasonably prudent person would have done because it did not fulfill the standard of care typical of how any similar engineer would judge and act in similar situations c) that the damages were caused ("proximately caused") by the negligence. d) That the damages were "reasonably foreseeable" at the time of the alleged negligence.
48
Standard of Care
In legal cases, a judge or jury, has to determine what the standard of care is and whether an engineer has failed to achieve that level of performance. They do so by hearing expert testimony. People who are qualified as experts express opinions as to the standard of care and as to the defendant engineer's performance relative to that standard. The testimony from all sides is weighted and then a decision is made what the standard of care was and whether the defendant met it
49
Standard of Care
Jury instructions have been standardized. A Bench Approved Jury Instruction (BAJI, 1986) reads: "In performing professional services for a client, a (structural engineer) has the duty to have that degree of learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable (structural engineers), practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances. It is (the structural engineer's) further duty to use the care and skill ordinarily used in like cases by reputable members of the (structural engineering) profession practicing in the same or similar locality under similar circumstances, and to use reasonable diligence and (the structural engineer's) best judgment in the exercise of professional skill and in the application of learning, in an effort to accomplish the purpose for which (the structural engineer) was employed. A failure to fulfill any such duty is negligence"
50
Standard of Care
Three key items in this instruction bear repeating: 1. ...have learning and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable engineers practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances. ...use care and skill ordinarily possessed by reputable engineers practicing in the same or similar locality and under similar circumstances. ...use reasonable diligence and best judgment to accomplish the purpose for which the engineer was employed. If any one of these conditions is not met, the engineer has failed to meet the standard of care, and is professionally negligent.
51
2.
3.
Negligence involving joint tortfeasors Joint Tortfeasors (wrongdoers): two or more persons whose negligence in a single accident or event causes damages to another person. In many cases the joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the damages, meaning that any of them can be responsible to pay the entire amount, no matter how unequal the negligence of each party was. Example: Harry Hotrod is doing 90 miles an hour along a two-lane road in the early evening, Adele Aimster has stopped her car to study a map with her car sticking out into the lane by six inches. Hotrod swings out a couple of feet to miss Aimster's vehicle, never touches the brake, and hits Victor Victim, driving from the other direction, killing him. While Hotrod is grossly negligent for the high speed and failure to slow down, Aimster is also negligent for her car's slight intrusion into the lane. As a joint tortfeasor she may have to pay all the damages, particularly if Hotrod has no money or insurance. However, comparative negligence rules by statute or case law in most jurisdictions will apportion the liability by percentages of 52 negligence among the tortfeasors and the injured parties.
Comparative Negligence
Negligence Per Se
Negligence due to the violation of a public duty, such as high speed driving. In Blacks Law Dictionary negligence per se is defined as: Conduct, whether of action or omission, which may be declared and treated as negligence without any argument or proof as to the particular surrounding circumstances, either because it is in violation of a statute or valid municipal ordinance, or because it is so palpably opposed to the dictates of common prudence that it can be said without hesitation or doubt that no careful person would have been guilty of it. As a general rule, the violation of a public duty, enjoined by law for the protection of person or property, so constitutes."
54
Recklessness
Recklessness: An injury caused by conduct that is more than mere carelessness but less than actual intent to cause harm Recklessness: Carelessness in reckless disregard for the safety of the lives of others. It is more than simple inadvertence but it is less than being consciously intent on causing harm Gross negligence is another way of saying recklessness Culpable negligence: a degree of carelessness greater than simple negligence. It is a negligent act or omission accompanied by a culpable disregard for the foreseeable consequences of that act or omission
55
Intention
Intend: To fix the mind upon (something to be accomplished); to be intent upon; to mean; to design; to plan; to purpose Intend: have in mind as a purpose; to design for a specific purpose. Intend: to act with purpose; mean; design; plan; conceive; contemplate. Intentionality: expressive of intentions
56
59
Zimbardo Experiment
By the end of the sixth day, the situation had deteriorated to such an extent, with guards inventing new rules to make the prison regime more punitive, that Zimbardo called a halt to the experiment. Zimbardo said in his book that the mock prison had to be shut down because "the ugliest, most base, pathological side of human nature surfaced. The important question for ethics becomes: What caused it to surface? Was it simply deep down inside of each individual? Or, did the particular situation that they were put into cause them to act like they did? The analysis of the results showed that the subjects simply 'became' the roles they played. More than a third of the guards behaved in such a hostile manner consistently, that Zimbardo described their behavior as sadistic. This was despite the fact that the roles were assigned at random and there was absolutely no prior evidence that any of the subjects was inclined to behave as they did. 61
Zimbardo Experiment
In his book The Lucifer Effect: Understanding How Good People Turn Evil, Zimbardo explains the full meaning of Stanford Prison Experiment. Generalizing from original results of the experiment, he suggests that dispositionism (i.e., that the propensity to do good or evil resides in our personal dispositions or characters or temperament) is a serious error, that good and evil are largely a function of our contexts and our roles, and that almost all of us are capable of real evil, given the proper situation. The theory is called situationism. Zimbardo uses his experiment to cast light on diverse problems, including;
the conduct of American soldiers at Abu Ghraib, airplane accidents, human inaction in the face of evident cruelty, the mistreatment of patients in hospitals, and the behavior of suicide bombers and terrorists in general
Obedience to Authority A Barrier to Responsibility Milgram experiment (late 1960s Yale University)
In the experiment ordinary men and women were brought in to participate in what they were told was a study of memory. When they arrived at the laboratory they were told that they were to play the role of teacher. They had to read a series of word pairs to another person on the other side of a partition. In the experiment, so-called "teachers" (who were actually the unknowing subjects of the experiment) were recruited by Milgram. They were asked administer an electric shock of increasing intensity to a "learner" for each mistake he made during the experiment. The fictitious story given to these "teachers" was that the experiment was exploring effects of punishment (for incorrect responses) on learning behavior. The "teacher" was not aware that the "learner" in the study was actually a compatriot of Milgrams - - merely feigning discomfort as the "teacher" increased the electric shocks.
63
Milgram experiment
When the "teacher" asked whether increased shocks should be given he/she was verbally encouraged to continue. Sixty percent of the "teachers" obeyed orders to punish the learner to the very end of the 450-volt scale! No subject stopped before reaching 300 volts! At times, the worried "teachers" questioned the experimenter, asking who was responsible for any harmful effects resulting from shocking the earner at such a high level. Upon receiving the answer that the experimenter assumed full responsibility, teachers seemed to accept the response and continue shocking, even though some were obviously extremely uncomfortable in doing so. The study raised many questions about how the subjects could bring themselves to administer such heavy shocks. 64
Milgram experiment
The apparent shocks were delivered by a simulated shock generator, offering thirty clearly delineated voltage levels, ranging from 15 to 450 volts, accompanied by verbal descriptions ranging from "Slight Shock" to "XXX." As the experiment unfolded, the subject was asked to administer increasingly severe shocks for incorrect answers, well past the "Danger, Severe Shock" level, which began at 375 volts. The mechanism for administering the shocks had 30 levels or settings raging from 15 to 450 volts, so that the maximum number of shocks that could be given was 30. Milgram devised a set of four prods that the experimenter gave to subjects who asked whether they should continue to administer shocks (Milgram, 1974:21):
1. please continue, 2. the experiment requires you to continue, 3. it is absolutely essential that you continue, and 4. you have no other choice, you must go on.
These prods were made in sequence and if the subject refused to obey after prod 4, the experiment was terminated.
65
66
Milgram experiment
The expected break-off point is the "Very Strong Shock" of 195 volts. In Milgram's experiment, however, every one of the forty subjects went beyond 300 volts. A large majority--twenty-six of the forty subjects, or 65 percent--went to the full 450-volt shock, five steps beyond "Danger, Severe Shock." Replications of Milgram's experiments, with thousands of diverse people in numerous countries, show essentially the same behavior. And women do not behave differently from men. Milgram concluded that ordinary people will follow orders even if the result is to produce great suffering in innocent others.
67
There is clear evidence from Milgram's study that the presence of the experimenter helped to increase obedience. When he left the room, obedience dropped from 65% to 21%. The same thing happens in classrooms, offices and factory floors as well.
The Buffer Effect The buffer in the Milgram experiment was the wall between teacher and learner. Milgram showed that if the teacher was personally required to hold the learners hand on the shock plate, then obedience dropped from 65% to 40%. It seemed that the more direct the interaction between the teacher and the learner, the lower the obedience would be. Milgram tested this theory in reverse by conducting an experiment where the teacher was required to pull a lever which would cause another person to administer the shocks. In this case the obedience level went up from 65% to 93%.
68
Milgram and Zimbardo Experiments and Ethics . In his book, Obedience to Authority, Milgram concludes that "A substantial proportion of people do what they are told to do, irrespective of the content of the act and without limitations of conscience, so long as they perceive that the command comes from a legitimate authority." But, what constitutes legitimate authority is the crucial question. "What encourages obedience?
Is it fear of punishment or negative repercussions? A desire to please? A need to go along with the group? A blind faith in authority?"
70
72
73
The focus is usually on the managers in the middle because, although they exhibit enough seniority to make important and visible decisions, they are not senior enough to be able to hide behind the diffusion of responsibility that provides top management cover Empirical research confirms this: Decision making at the operational level tends to be highly visible and are marked by clearly defined beginning, middle, and end states Top management decisions are more fluid, evolutionary, consensual, and temporal, where negations are carried on with numerous individuals and groups over a period of time
74
76
Diffusion of Responsibility
The tendency for persons in a group situation to fail to take action because others are present, thus diffusing the responsibility for acting. A major factor in inhibiting bystanders from intervening in emergencies People are much more likely to intervene if they are alone rather than in the presence of others, especially if the other is a stranger Experiment: Reasoned that the presence of a stranger weakened individual responses by diffusing their sense of responsibility Finding: If individuals have their efforts identified when they are part of a cohesive highly moral group, they will exert even more effort than they would if they were only working for their own personal benefit Finding: If the roles and responsibilities of team members are not clearly identified, individuals will tend to loaf and they will not produce their best effort
77
78
Explanation for it: The Risk As Value Hypothesis: Moderate risk is valued in our culture. Therefore, people want to shift toward risky decisions to gain status and approval
81
Responsibility
Criminal
(Public Welfare Milk, Water)
Individual Collective
Whole Groups
(Athletic teams Nazis-Jews Whites-Blacks)
Collective Responsibility
Collective responsibility, like personal responsibility, refers to both the causal responsibility of moral agents for causing harm And the blameworthiness that we ascribe to them for having caused such harm It is always a notion of moral rather than purely causal responsibility It does not locate associate either causal responsibility or blameworthiness with discrete individuals or locate the source of moral responsibility in the free will of the individual moral agents Instead, it associates both causal and moral responsibility with groups and locates the source of moral responsibility in the collective actions taken by these groups understood as collectives Related to notions of group intentions, collective actions, and 86 group blameworthiness
Collective Responsibility
Ascriptions of Responsibility for wrong doing to groups or large organizations Arguments Against:
1.
2.
Organizations are not personsunlike individuals, they cannot form intentions and hence cannot be understood to act or to cause harm as a group. Organizations as distinct from their individual members, cannot be understood as morally blameworthy in the sense required by moral responsibility.
87
3. A collective action is caused by the beliefs and desires (wants) of the collective itself, whether or not such beliefs and desires can be accounted for or explained in individualistic terms
4. Group intentions exist when two or more persons constitute the plural subject of an intention to carry out a particular action, or, in other words, when they are jointly committed to intending as a body to pursue a collectively-held goal or objective
1. A team is jointly committed and jointly intends to carry out a play
88
Collective Intentionality
1. 2. 3. Collective intentionality -- Groups exhibit joint commitments to act as a single body
1. Example: codes of professional ethics
mind-sets or cognitive schema unique to a group or organization E.g., engineers think differently than managers We have a practice of attributing responsibility to organizations (consider, for instance, current tobacco lawsuits) and this seems to presuppose that organizations literally have intentional states. For we could not hold them legally and morally responsible for an action unless they intended to commit the act. Groupthink as a possible example Risky shift as a possible example
4. 5.
89
Theories of Collective Responsibility Two conditions of Collective Moral Agency: Free Action: We must be able to claim that a collective performed an action such that the action cited cannot be reduced to the action of any given individual within the collective. (e.g., representational government) Knowledge: We must be able to say in some sense that the collective knew the consequences of the action, or should have known of these consequences, so as to support the claim that its action is intentional.
90
Theories of Collective Moral Responsibility III. Determination of collective responsibility determining the conditions under which the group is responsible to a third party for the actions of one of its members (Is a university collectively responsible for the sexual harassment of a student by a university employee?) The Causal Theory: the causal role that organizations play in shaping the behavior of their agents
91
92
93
Individual Responsibility
Collective Responsibility
References
Bovins, B. (1998) The Quest for Responsibility, Accountability and Citizenship in Large Organizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press Gaylin, Willard and Bruce Jennings (1996) The Perversion of Autonomy: The Proper Uses of Coercion and Constraints in a Liberal Society New York: The Free Press Latane, B. and R. Rodin (1969) A Lady in Distress: Inhibiting Effects of Friends and Strangers on Bystander Intervention, Journal of Experimental Psychology 5: 189-202 Latane , B and K. Williams and S. Harkins (1979) Many hands make light work: the causes and consequences of social loafing, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 37: 822-32. Smiley, Marion (1992) Moral Responsibility and the Boundaries of Community: Power and Accountability From a Pragmatic Point of View. University of Chicago Press Hacking, Ian Culpable Ignorance and Interference Effects in Values at Risk
95