Ethics Shared Responsibility
This article is part of an Ethical theory.
Sometimes a man is solely responsible for his deeds, whether good or bad. However, most people also follow others. When they are under the direction or influence of others, they are not wholly responsible for their actions. Instead, the responsibility is shared according to who was responsible for each step, and by the amount of Free Will available to each participant.
Coercion
The clearest case of reduced responsibility is when someone is magically coerced. If someone is ensorcelled so they lack the capacity to reject the commands of the sorcerer, then they are almost entirely without responsibility for their actions, and all the moral weight falls on the mage. The only responsibility that the conduit for the actions has relates to the circumstances in which they became compelled. If they were foolish or careless, or avoidably ignorant, then they must carry part of the moral weight generated by the informed element of the consent. If they volunteered while knowing (or being in a circumstance as to reasonably be expected to know) the consequences, then they share in the entire consent, and thus carry the full load of their actions, along with the mage. This case extends proportionally based on the degree of compulsion, whether it be through magic, blood-bond, oath, contract, or social nicety. Politeness is a case where social coercion is regularly applied by a group.
To a degree, we are all shaped by our parents and guardians in which virtues we are habituated, and which with values we are inculcated. However, once past the age of majority, we must take full responsibility for our own desires and passions. It is in the forming of consent that the shared responsibility occurs. If one weighs all the knowledge and makes a decision, one is fully responsible. If the knowledge is unreasonably biased or presented to influence, then the provider of information is partially responsible. If the decision is shared by several people, each is responsible according to their ability to influence the decision. If the implementers of a decision chose to serve knowing this kind of action was expected, they are also responsible, as they have already decided the action is one they would or could make, or at least implement. If the implementers did not expect or agree to this decision, then they face a moral quandary – were they given immoral orders?
Sin and Committees
Sharing responsibility does not share the moral gravitas of a decision or action. Each member of a council, each person who can influence the consent or action, each contributor carries weight proportional to the influence that they had. If any of a council of eight could have changed the course of events, then each carries the full weight of the outcome. A true leader takes council and advice, but makes the final call alone, sparing their trusted and beloved the cost of hard decisions, particularly in the case when there is no clear right course of action. Those who govern by committee seek to ameliorate their responsibility, and instead multiply the weight of their actions. Cowards can be found on committees, or behind them, in bureaucracies and administration. Leaders do not share the final burden, though they share the praise.
Immoral Orders
When one receives an order or command, whether it be from a liege-lord, a commander, a priest, or a senior member of one’s own household, one is compelled to follow it. We are all bound by the hierarchies around us, and much damage is done by breaking the chain of command. However, there are times when the decision made and consent given by a leader appears completely wrong, and even criminal. In these cases, the degree of trust and faith in one’s overlord, that they have the correct information, and sound judgement, comes into play. If you doubt their capacity to lead, to know better and decide more wisely than yourself, and you feel that greater harm will be done by you following the orders, than the harm you will do in betraying their leadership and discarding your loyalty, them you may be morally compelled to disobey immoral orders. This is not a decision to be taken lightly – except in the case of a sudden madman, at best you will be committing the lesser of two evils. The weight of your actions is proportional to the success that you have in reducing the effect of the actions, reduced by the harm you have done to authority, and the destruction of your own loyalty. Any completely ineffective denial of an order, no matter how wrong, is thus also wrong. Any punishment that you may face for your actions should be immaterial to your decision, and should be faced with equanimity, as a result of your own free choice. Note that some of our greatest heroes and martyrs made stand against immoral orders, but some of the greatest traitors and fools also believed that they did.
