Create Legitimacy

Invite Trust

Make Cooperation Possible

Quietly Hold Civilization Together

Quietly Judge

Require Light

Reward Consistency

Reward Documentation

Reward Transparency

Turn Influence Into Responsibility

accountability

cancel culture

political correctness

Boomer

optical illusion

self-awareness

self-love

shadow

dirty mind

blaming

is a fiction --- In former times the value of an action was inferred not from the action itself, nor from the intention, but from its 'consequences'.

32. Throughout the longest period of human history one calls it the prehistoric period the value or non-value of an action was inferred from its CONSEQUENCES... the action in itself was not taken into consideration, any more than its origin... but pretty much as in China at present, where the distinction or disgrace of a child redounds to its parents, the retro-operating power of success or failure was what induced men to think well or ill of an action. Let us call this period the PRE-MORAL period of mankind... the imperative, 'Know thyself!' was then still unknown. (nietzsche 'beyond' 44)

is an impossibility --- we are not the work of ourselves... the great mind alone can grasp the idea of his 'complete unaccountability'.

Modesty. There is true modesty (that is, the recognition that we are not the work of ourselves)... and it well becomes the great mind because it is precisely he who can grasp the idea of his complete unaccountability (also for the good he creates). One hates the immodesty of the great man, not to the extent that it comes from a sensation of his own strength, but because through it he evidences a desire to experience this strength by wounding others, treating them in a domineering way and seeing how far they will put up with it. As a rule this behaviour is even a sign that he lacks a calm certainty of his strength and thus leads men to doubt his greatness. To this extent immodesty is from a prudential point of view very inadvisable. (nietzsche 'human all too human' : 189)

is determined purely based on where the line falls between voluntary and involuntary.

The big question about risks is one of accountability who is to blame, who is responsible. In this respect the question of voluntary and involuntary (i.e. imposed upon the individual) becomes an important question. Accountability is determined purely based on where this line falls. If it were fall far to the latter, 'all suicides and murders would be owed redress by the institutions which drive them to their deed' (Douglas Risk and Culture 1). This is totally Durkheim it depends on the lens with which we look at the problem.

is difficult to assign in complex situations. Put simply, the greater number of smokestacks, the harder it is to attribute blame.

As a result, 'the greater the number of smokestacks and discharge pipes through which pollutants and toxins are omitted, the lower the 'residual probability' that a culprit can be made responsible' 56Beck, 'From Industrial Society to the Risk Society: Questions of Survival, Social Structure and Ecological Enlightenment', op. cit., p. 103). . . ..The limits of science and of the bureaucracy are revealed by their inability directly to connect the polluter with specific pollutants. The more pollution generated and the more polluters, for Beck, essentially dilutes the social compact and the ability to apportion blame, responsibility and thus secure compensation. . . (Jarvey 2007)

is, in modern western civilization, a sin usually regarded as necessary. A voluntary action or thought, in many simple societies an involuntary action may fall within the given definition of sin. -for example leprosy among the hebrews . ..

While in modem western civilisation a sin is usually regarded as necessarily a voluntary action or thought, in many simple societies an involuntary action may fall within the given definition of sin. Sickness for example, leprosy among the Hebrews is often regarded as similar to ritual or religious pollution and as therefore requiring expiation or ritual purification. A condition of ritual or rehgious impurity is normally considered as one of immediate or ultimate danger to the individual... it may be believed that he will fall sick and perhaps die unless he can be purified. In some religions the religious sanction takes the form of a belief that an individual who sins in this life will suffer some form of retribution in an after-life. In many instances an individual who is ritually unclean is looked upon as a source of danger not only to himself but also to those with whom he comes in contact or to the whole community. He may therefore be more or less excluded for a time or even permanently from participation in the social life of the community. Frequently, if not always, an obligation therefore rests upon the sinner, or unclean person, to undertake the necessary process of purification. (R-brown 'social sanctions' 1940 : 207)

is made more difficult by the probabilistic nature of risks where no-one is to blame.

the probablistic nature of modern risks presents special problems in assigning blame and in apportioning justice. If we are all responsible, if 'everyone is cause and effect,' then there is no responsibility and there are no real causes. The invisible, intangible nature of modern threats makes the problem all the fuzzier. In the clouds of such ambiguity powerful organizations evade political accountability, promote more risk production, and dismiss critics as irrational and emotional' (review of Beck's Risk Society Lee Clarke)

accountability, n.All

accountability