What is Collective Responsibility?

The “Collective Responsibility” by James Narveson shows that the basic bearer of responsibility is the individual. The author observes that individuals can act on the basis of being members of a group but individual contributions should result in individual consequences for actions. Narveson begins by considering the basic elements of group action theory where he observes that individuals are fundamental since the question of morals is usually based on individual terms. He further observes that group membership is relevant since the subject of moral requirement first falls on some level of generalization for the entire group and then it follows individual actions. Narveson thus makes a compelling argument that morals predicate over groups and moral requirements must apply to individuals. When considering the case of wrongdoing that is spread over a large group such as genocide or war, one can question whether it is a subject of collective or moral responsibility. Narveson answers this by carefully analyzing the actions in a group. He observes that many groups are based on voluntary action. He also makes an accurate observation that group action is reducible since actions in a group can be traced back to the individual. Narveson also points out the observation that groups can act as a team where a game can only be won by a team. The author accurately observes that war follows a game like notion but genocide is not the same since it is initiated by a series of individual actions. For the case of wars, Narveson observes that group leaders have to give orders to specific soldiers. By making all actions are reducible, it makes it easier to punish the individual as punishing a group would be unjust since not everyone took part in equal crimes. Narveson also makes a compelling argument by arguing about the differences in responsibility for membership. He observes that an individual would be responsible for membership if they willfully join a group that undertakes evil. He also makes a strong case for that of collective ownership where he notes that collective ownership of the earth is simply a political myth. On the issue of individual ownership, Narveson observes that instead of considering history that could create several issues, individual ownership should be based on making definite transactions. The arguments presented are compelling and offer new insight on the subject of collective and individual responsibility. 

References 

Narveson, J. (2002). Collective responsibility.  The Journal of Ethics ,  6 (2), 179-198.