” Blameworthiness, Trustworthiness, and the Second-Personal Standpoint: Foundations for an Ethical Theory of Accountability “*. Prepared for presentation at the 2013 EGPA Annual Conference, Group VII: Quality and Integrity of Governance, Edinburgh, Scotland, 11-13 September 2013.
Abstract:
In this paper I make the case for a theory of accountability. Moreover, I will make the case for an ethical theory of accountability, one that centers our subject in human relationships rather than mechanisms and institutions. The foundation for this effort involves adapting a “second-personal standpoint” elaborated by moral theorist Stephen Darwall, with specific attention to the role of blameworthiness and trustworthiness is establishing an aspirational standard that informs efforts to enhance accountable governance. I contend that efforts to improve or enhance the quality (and integrity) of governance arrangements are driven by a collective ambition to achieve moral accountability in the Darwallian sense.
AI-Generated Summary:
This document advocates for an ethical, relational theory of accountability rooted in second-personal moral perspectives to enhance governance and human relationships.
Foundations of an Ethical Accountability Theory
- The paper advocates for an ethics-based theory of accountability centered on human relationships rather than institutions.
- It emphasizes adapting Stephen Darwall’s second-personal standpoint to understand blameworthiness and trustworthiness as standards for accountable governance.
Limitations of Current Accountability Frameworks
- Existing models are either analytic (principal-agent) or normative (reform-oriented), lacking focus on relational aspects.
- These approaches treat accountability as a mechanism or function, not as a fundamental social relationship.
The Second-Personal Standpoint in Moral Theory
- Darwall’s second-personal standpoint (SPS) shifts focus from individual reasoning to relationships involving authority, legitimacy, competence, and accountability.
- SPS grounds moral obligations in interpersonal claims and demands, emphasizing responsibility within social relationships.
Developing an Ethical Theory of Accountability
- The author builds on Darwall’s SPS to create an ethical framework applicable to governance, especially under conditions of conflicting expectations.
- Accountability is viewed as an ethical decision rooted in social relationships, involving justification and responsibility.
Blameworthiness and Trustworthiness as Key Factors
- Blameworthiness relates to responsibility for moral wrongs and pre-factum blame, influencing perceptions of accountability.
- Trustworthiness, though less discussed in moral theory, is implied through respect and the legitimacy of claims within relationships.
Application to Governance and Decision-Making
- Darwall’s model can explain accountability in political and organizational contexts, such as presidential decisions.
- Ethical accountability involves recognizing blameworthiness and trustworthiness, shaping responsible behavior in complex social settings.
Types of Respect in Darwall’s SPS Model
- Appraisal respect focuses on assessments of behavior, reputation, and character traits that must be earned and maintained.
- Recognition respect involves deference based on facts about an individual, such as status or role, implying trustworthiness rooted in merit or fact.
Trustworthiness and Moral Accountability
- Respect-based trustworthiness is essential for legitimacy and competence in SPS relationships, implying moral responsibility.
- Variability from internal and external forces affects trustworthiness, making internalization of blameworthiness and trustworthiness difficult to structurally emulate.
Ethical Theory of Accountability
- Social desire for moral status drives efforts to establish accountability, rooted in Enlightenment ideas like Adam Smith’s view of moral beings.
- Reforms aim to emulate Darwall’s moral accountability model, but perfect replication requires a closed, monastic-like moral community, which is practically impossible.
Institutional Examples and Challenges
- Military, prisons, and total institutions attempt to create isolated moral communities with clear authority, legitimacy, and accountability.
- Despite efforts, real-world institutions like the military and prisons often fail to fully achieve moral accountability due to external influences and internal variability.
Market and Corporate Accountability
- Market institutions face difficulties internalizing trustworthiness and blameworthiness, especially in crises like the 2007-2008 financial collapse.
- Legal personhood is the primary tool for externalizing moral accountability in markets, but it cannot fully replicate moral personhood.
Moral, Metaphysical, and Legal Personhood
- Metaphysical personhood involves biological and psychological traits; moral personhood emphasizes accountability and moral standing.
- Legal personhood depends on law and status, but it does not inherently confer moral responsibility or internalized trustworthiness.
Implications for Reform and Governance
- Efforts to enhance accountability are driven by moral aims but are limited by organizational and societal constraints.
- Externalization through law is the primary means to approximate moral accountability, yet true internalization remains elusive.
Summary of Key Insights
- Structural emulation of moral accountability is limited by the internalization of trustworthiness and blameworthiness.
- Reforms are often motivated by moral goals but are constrained by external influences and organizational variability.
- The ethical theory emphasizes that true moral accountability is internal and cannot be fully achieved through structural design alone.