The last few classes and in last week’s posts, people have been debating whether Sartre’s radical declaration of responsibility would be beneficial if everyone followed such an idea.
In class, we broke down Sartre’s idea of responsibility into the understanding that everyone is response-able, which means everyone can respond any given situation. When discussing the consequences from everyone bearing the responsibility, it seems that many people were not convinced that a better world would result.
For example, Ben and Allison mentioned that the bystander effect is a problem in this idea of responsibility because people would “pass off” taking responsibility for a situation because there are other people involved. In other words, the incentive to take action would decrease because there are other people that bear the same responsibility as you.
I understand the problem of the bystander effect but I disagree. I think that if there was a universal understanding and following of Sartre’s responsibility, then the world would be better.
If everyone is able to respond to any situation, wouldn’t that simple idea serve as an incentive for someone to respond to a situation in a positive, beneficial manner? For example, in class we discussed how everyone in class is aware of the war in Iraq. Because we are aware of the war, we must respond to the situation of the war. Personally, I would like the war to stop because my Uncle is over in Iraq; however, I am not advocating for the war to stop through any of my actions. I am not actively trying to stop the war, which means that I am responding in a way that advocates for the war to continue.
Doesn't an idea of advocating for a war because of lack of participation serve as an incentive to take action? I think so. To think locally, or at least nationally, we have issues of poverty and homelessness (with humans and animals). If we are not trying to combat these problems, whether through volunteering at soup kitchens, protesting, etc., then we are saying that we are okay with such problems.
If everyone realized that our response to a situation/problem/etc. impacts the world as a whole and not just us individually, then I think that our society would have less hostility. I do not think that all or our problems would disappear, but I do think that we would be on the way to finding solutions and enacting laws to help combat worldwide problems.
What do you think? Do you agree that Sartre’s idea of responsibility would lead to a better world? Or do you disagree?
I agree with you Sarah that it might be overall more beneficial for each individual to recognize his or her radical responsibility. However, still don't think I agree with you that more change would happen as a result. Based on Sartre's definition of responsibility, everyone is equally responsible. This means that even if you spend 10 hours a week protesting the war if Iraq (or advocating for it, for that matter), you are just as responsible as I am when I don't spend any time protesting/advocating. Even if you spent 40 hours a week, you would be just as responsible as if you spent 10. What incentive does this model of responsibility give us to act?
ReplyDeleteI also agree with Ben. Sartre's definition also leaves me lacking. For me, responsibility holds with it the ability to blame someone for the neglect of acknowledging this responsibility. As we kept saying in class, I am not sure I am able to differentiate the idea of responsibility vs. blame. Waht does everyone think? What exactly is the difference and is it enough for a radical change to be born from Sartre's understanding?
ReplyDeleteI guess I never thought of it like that Ben; that does make sense. I think this model of responsibility just increases the likelihood of responding to a situation in a beneficial way to a situation. I don't necessarily agree that the model will cause everyone to get up and start taking responsibility. I think Sartre's model increases awareness of how individual responses to situations impact the world as a whole.
ReplyDeleteColin, I was looking up the difference online so I can try to get a more concrete answer with the difference between responsibility and blame.
ReplyDeleteResponsibility is being able to respond to a situation (hence, response-able).
Blame is the opposite; it is the avoidance of responsibility via assigning the blame to another.
I'm not sure that just the difference between the two is radical enough to bring about a change. We tie the two together, so I think it would be hard for us to separate the two terms now.
http://www.tomgraves.org/10blame
Colin, I dont think Sartre's definition is enough to bring about radical change for one sole and simple reason: even if everyone is responsible for certain actions, that doesn't mean they will accept this responsibility or even be cogniscent of it. To me it seems like if Sartre's idea was widely spread, it would also be more of a means to spread blame than for people to take responsibility and proactively work to change things. It would just become a big mud-slinging contest about who can pinpoint the blame somewhere else the most.
ReplyDeleteFirst I just want to clarify that I intended to use the bystander effect as an example for why a universal responsibility would be beneficial, as it involves denying one's responsibility to others. I am still in agreement with Sartre's theory, although no one else seems to like it very much.
ReplyDeleteMatt, I think you're exactly right: just because everyone is responsible doesn't mean that they will take action. However, the fact of their responsibility is still unchanged.
Ben, you ask what incentive this idea gives us to act. If everyone had to accept that they are undeniably responsible for the world, I honestly think it would make a lot of difference. Most people do not claim responsibility for things they don't indirectly cause. This is why imagining a war as being all of our responsibility, whether we fight or not, is a somewhat difficult concept to grasp. However, accepting responsibility would put the weight of that whole war on each person's shoulders. Again, not all people would take action based upon this, but I do think it would have a substantial effect.
It seems to me that Sartre's notion of radical responsibility can best be interpreted as a call to recognize our capacity for action (however small it may be) via a hyperbolic description of our relationship to collective enterprises such as wars, whose existence and character most of us could only hope to influence on the margins. This, at any rate, seems to be the most tenable interpretation. Nonetheless, even if we are not introducing concepts of guilt or blame into our notion of responsibility, it does not seem possible to completely sever the relationship between responsibility and tangible effect as to the outcome of the situation. A bystander is responsible for his attempt to aid a victim of a car accident (or failing to do so), but is not responsible for the events which led to the accident. In my view, the almost infinite notion of responsibility towards which Sartre's view tends may have the effect of increasing our impulse to act upon situations for which we ourselves are not juridically responsible, but in doing so it weakens our sense of normal, direct responsibility for actions and circumstances which are reasonably within our sphere of control. This objection underlies the liberal (or in this country, conservative) critique of exactly the kind of social movements that Dr J. highlighted as indicative of Sartre's principle of responsibility at work. The Occupy Wall Street types express individual grievances such as heavy student loan debt in terms of collective action, whereas the traditional notion of direct, juridical (if not in a literal legal sense) responsibility replies ,"...and well, why did you choose to shell out 200 grand for a degree in Film Studies?"
ReplyDelete