Ethics of responsibility

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term ethics of responsibility denotes ethical systems that focus on the actual results and their accountability when making decisions between alternative courses of action or in the normative assessment of actions . The term was introduced by Max Weber as a counter-term to “ ethics of conviction ”, under which he summarizes ethical positions that judge types of action based on the conformity of motive and intention with given ethical values. According to Max Weber, it is the task of political actors to find a balance between ethics of responsibility and ethics of conviction.

Concept history

The distinction between ethics of responsibility and ethics of conviction goes back to Max Weber's 1919 lecture Politics as a Profession . Before that, Max Scheler had contrasted ethics of conviction and ethics of success in a similar way . Max Weber put it:

“We have to realize that all ethically oriented action can be subject to two fundamentally different, inalienable contradicting maxims: it can be oriented towards 'ethical convictions' or ' ethically responsible'. Not that ethics of convictions are identical with irresponsibility and ethics of responsibility with irresponsibility. Of course there is no question of that. But there is an abysmal contrast between acting under the ethical maxim - in religious terms: 'The Christian does right and relies on God for success' - or under the ethical one: that one has to pay for the (foreseeable) consequences of his actions. "

Weber did not see the juxtaposition as a complete division of basic types of ethics and not necessarily as mutually exclusive positions. The distinction must also be seen from the point of view of the discussion about Realpolitik . Not least in the Prussian constitutional conflict around 50 years earlier, this had divided the German liberals, to whom Max Weber was personally connected. The question was whether political demands, the realization of which did not seem feasible, should be abandoned in favor of participation in power in order to take on at least some of the responsibility for political events from this position, or whether one should stick to the convictions and would remain in the opposition for it, which would have meant both a renunciation of influence and a hindrance to the political process. Weber's confrontation and the attempt to find a balance could therefore also be understood as a call for the reunification of the politically organized liberals.

Motive for action

In the case of limited resources, ethically responsible measures are to be preferred which have the greatest possible success / impact coefficient, or (in a weakened form) the available resources are to be distributed according to these coefficients (and not evenly).

Criticisms

One problem with responsibility ethics is limited information about the results of a specific action. An act which - viewed in isolation - appears justified could have harmful consequences for third parties due to a chain of circumstances. Already in John Locke there are examples of actions, the value of which changes depending on the context (at first it seems forbidden to steal someone's property, but it is imperative to steal his weapon from someone who is in a frenzy).

Another problem is the lack of a hierarchy of values. Responsible ethicists from different schools or philosophical directions or cultures can arrive at different commandments, depending on which consequences of an action they consider likely and how they assess them. The period of consideration can also be decisive here: an action may appear to be necessary in the short term in terms of ethical responsibility, but it may have negative long-term effects.

See also

literature

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ In: The formalism in ethics and the material ethics of values , 1913.
  2. ↑ Max Weber: Politics as a Profession , in: Collected Political Writings, ed. by J. Winckelmann, 5th edition Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1988, 551-552