In the collective model just the opposite happens with the blame. No one in the collective model takes the blame. Its seems to me that the model is just an easy way of "passing the buck." The example Thompson cites in the article about the train robbery bothers me. Basically, it sounds to me like blaming the victim for the crime instead of blaming the criminal. I fully disagree with the collective model for that reason.
Overall, I thought Thompson article was well written and easily understood. I felt he developed his arguments in a well thought out manner. I believe that everyone needs to be held accountable when it comes to public officials. Too often in the history books has blame been easily set aside. Public officials must be held accountable for their actions. They enter in the system with the full knowledge that their actions are going to be watched and judged. Those are just a few of my thoughts on the Thompson article. I'm sure I will have more to say about it later as I continue to think about this issue.
Nicholas Bly
Well put. I had similar thoughts and concerns while reading the article. Both models to me seem risky and it's clear that the issue of many hands is a tricky one. I suppose the hierarchical model seems to make a little more sense to me than the collective model. While I agree with your point that everyone should be personally responsible for his or her own actions, I think that a person in a leadership role has more responsibility than those below him or her. If, for example, I decide to take a leadership role in an organization, I would feel that I had considerably more responsibility for the organizations failures than others in the group. Part of my role as a leader should be to delegate tasks and monitor actions that those "below" me are taking. I don't think I would be completely blameworthy if someone under me made a mistake, but I would also feel partially responsible if it lead to a serious problem. You do, however, make a valid point about leaders being too eager to take the blame publicly for their mistakes and not learning lessons. Perhaps this could be avoided somehow, although I'm not entirely sure how.
ReplyDeleteNicholas and Christina, remember that Thompson does mention the the collective model can be taken two ways, at the aggregate level, and the individual level. Thompson recognizes that they contradict each other.(this takes place on pg.907) I thought of Nagel with a moral responsibility going to the public vs private levels.
ReplyDeleteLeaders taking responsibility, even when they are not at fault seems to be a mere political move. I think it depends on the leader to see what cousre of action he/she may take.