Responsibility as an Obstacle to Good Policy: The Case of Lifestyle Related Disease

Some philosophers deny that there is any such thing as corporate or collective responsibility or hold that such responsibility is extremely rare (e.g. Sverdlik 1987; Corlett 2001). However, these debates need not detain us, for two reasons. First, even if these critics of collective responsibility are right (the view is rapidly becoming less popular), much the same set of issues would remain. The only thing that would change would be that phrases like “the responsibility of corporations” would have to be interpreted as shorthand for whatever claim the critics allege they can be reduced to (perhaps “the responsibility of senior managers”). Second, no one denies that there is some sense in which it may be apt to hold corporations responsible. We may, for instance, impose restrictions on them due to their causal roles. Responsibility sceptics do not deny the aptness of forward-looking responsibility ascriptions, justified on consequentialist grounds, and therefore may accept such ascriptions with regard to corporations consistent with their scepticism about moral responsibility more generally.

For evidence that the conditions in question (ranging from the placement of advertisements to the structure of malls and even streetscapes) makes it difficult for individuals to make better choices, see Levy 2012.

I mean “acceptance” here to be neutral between believing a claim and acting on the claim. There is ongoing debate over whether we can exercise direct control over our beliefs. While everyone accepts that it is not possible to believe just any proposition at will, some philosophers claim that there are circumstances in which we can decide to believe a proposition; others deny that beliefs are under direct control at all (see Levy 2007; Levy and Mandelbaum 2014 for discussion). I do not take a stand on this question here. Whether or not we can exercise direct control over our beliefs, we can certainly refrain from acting on them in many circumstances. Note, too, that the fact that I intend “acceptance” to be neutral between belief and a more behavioural response entails that I do not have to take a stand on the so-called “pragmatic encroachment” debate: I am not committed to claiming that pragmatic considerations affect whether we ought to believe a claim.

In recent work, Hanna Pickard (2013, 2017) has been developing a framework for what she calls “responsibility without blame.” We hold people responsible without blaming them when we hold them accountable for their behaviour, recognizing the degree of control they have over it and even imposing measures that might seem punitive to them, while refraining from condemnation, targeting them with hostile emotions, or rejecting them. In light of this account, it might be objected that we can avoid the negative consequences commonly associated with holding responsible without giving up on attributing responsibility. Pickard’s account faces a difficulty highlighted by Michael McKenna (2012), in response to sceptics who hold that no one should be held responsible: plausible accounts of blame can encompass even the non-punitive responses she advocates. It is open to Pickard to respond by holding that the challenge concerns how we should label certain responses to those who cause harms, rather than anything substantive: perhaps she can concede that the kinds of responses she advocates might count as blame while nevertheless insisting that some blaming responses should be avoided and others (those she identifies with holding responsible without blaming) should replace them. Pickard’s focus, however, is on certain classes of individuals and not on the broader social effects of holding responsible. She might be right about the individuals she discusses while it remains true that it would be better to avoid attributing any kind of responsibility to those who cause their own ill-health because doing so will undermine public support for effective responses to the problems at issue. If that’s right, then how we should act all things considered depends, inter alia, on the balance of forces at play: is it more important to support the agency of individuals held responsible or to ensure that there are effective social policies? I cannot hope to settle that issue here. Note that however that plays out, the view sketched here can cite Pickard in support of the claim that we should avoid directing harsh criticism and condemnation at those who cause the harms in question.