Dealing with a careless person might be one of life's most stressful tasks. They often cause mayhem and may be unaware of their actions. On the other hand, it is critical to trust your judgment when you are certain that the complication is the result of their irresponsible actions (Narveson 56). Most people with individual deficit disorder are unable to make valuable decisions in their reckless lifestyle. Furthermore, they blame others for their actions and tend to dismiss their own thoughts when it comes to emotional concerns. Regardless of the circumstances, understanding oneself much better may be more satisfying, especially if one suffers from responsibility deficit disorder. Being able to examine actions and taking responsibility could actually evade the premeditated effect of responsibility deficit disorder. The doctrine of the methodological individual is greatly concerned with the relation that exists between society and individuals. Most theories present this doctrine in relation to reductionism. Choices for taking responsibility for one's deeds are undeniably momentous. It all commence with nature of our decision which prompts us into restructuring our life (Narveson 56).
Methodological individualism is a field of Social Science that tends to explain how social phenomena could result in individual actions which are reflected through personal intention and motives (Lukes 37). Over the past years, there has been a sizzling debate on the difference between methodological individualism and methodological holism. The doctrine of methodological individualism has had many proponents with a different opinion, even though they all seem to have common grounds which place social phenomena in an individual's life. They not only believe in defining the social concept in relation to individual behavior but also suppose the idea that all the explanation of social or individual phenomena must conform with the facts about individual in question. Individualism, on the other hand, is the moral responsibility ascribed to single human being with the exception of collective responsibility. This is to ensure an individual take full responsibility for their action without putting blames on other aspects. In most cases, people with individual deficit tend to put blames on others and many times, they end up transfer the problems that they encounter to others.
How Methodological Individualism results into "Responsibility Deficit."
The doctrine of the methodological individual is greatly concerned with the relation that exists between society and individuals. Most theories present this doctrine in relation to reductionism. They tend to be more reductive on the issues pertaining to individuals' reaction to events. Unlike philosophies of materialism, the theories believe that an individual mind must be reduced to propagate facts of neurophysiology. A lesser view to reductionism is the restrictive view which is supported by supereminence theory. In explaining social outcome caused by individual actions, choices, and mental stability, there should be a consideration of the social phenomena surrounding the individual. The recent debate on the relationship between social facts and the individual fact was majorly fueled by the idea of social events as the basis responsibility. Despite the idea behind the most reduction of social factors to accommodate physiological factor about individual being, there are exceptional situations. In most cases, individual tend to be confined by the pre-existing social condition which hinders personal social life.
Narveson argument and critics
Despite the doctrine of methodological individualism spreading far and wide, we cannot dispute the critique that the doctrine received from other proponents of the same doctrine in as much as they tend to have similar opinions on the ideas concerning their views on individual responsibility; Narveson repeatedly pushed forth his theory on collective responsibility. Moreover, the same concerns were also reported in the case of Weber's work who reprimanded on the misinterpretation that the need to consider individual values in establishing an individualistic method in evaluating responsibility is essential. As a result, the doctrine of methodological individualism attracted political debates around the 20th century; perhaps this was due to the nature of historical materialism that the doctrine dragged alongside the opinions. This period was marked by two distinctive controversies which later resulted in rational decision making imperialism. The doctrine of methodological individualism has had many proponents with a different opinion, even though they all seem to have common grounds which place social phenomena in an individual's life.
The idea of methodological individualism was closely defined in relation to the human behavior defined by the mental stability of an individual. Moreover, we can say that some of the human actions are automatically prompted by the mental state. Basically, the doctrine was for the idea that people act for particular reasons hence does not actually advocate for the phenomena behind human action. It is almost impossible to admit to the entire concept of methodological individualism due to the contradiction created by the theoretical explanation of the human action. Even though the defenders of the doctrine have tried to expound how much individualism is much of a conceptual framework than motivating factor, it still does not adequately answer the critiques of methodological individualism. Complementary to the principle of methodological individualism, the social atomic view is based on the suggestion that individual characteristic can be influenced by the group of people they associate with in their daily endeavors.
Collective moral responsibility
Collective responsibility is the responsibility that is associated to quo (Lukes 37). The question of moral responsibility does not only apply at the individual level, but groups can also assume the roles similar to ones at individual level. The collective moral responsibility attempts to examine the extent to which plural subject can account for moral responsibility on their individual members without many difficulties. Furthermore, the credibility of the collective moral responsibility is highly questionable since it is almost impossible to determine the commitment of the plural subject in a joint action. When a group is held responsible in regards to normative standards, then it becomes necessary to ensure all the members take the significant responsibility for their action whether positive or negative. Nonetheless, some collective groups are only fit to bear moral responsibility especially when it is closely related to them. In most cases, individual responsibility is attributed to the nature of life that a person went through. The collective responsibility enables the expression of different aspects of individual responsibility. The member should only be tactful to take full responsibility for their action when they are entirely sure of the position on the action. Moreover, not all situation call for collective responsibility, for instance, the measures in question was only handled by a section of the group. While all the members take responsibility for the action that they could be completely unaware of, some will groups will not. This is a major critique concerning the notion of collective moral responsibility (Agassi 78).
Another aspect that also caused uncertainty was whether the children and mentality unstable persons were to qualify as agents of collective responsibility (Cramer 90). Customarily, children do not have the capability to make a mature decision on their own. The story is similar to the mentally ill person. Their choice is usually uninformed hence very vulnerable to deliberate responsibility disorder deficit. Examining the credibility of moral responsibility should have the frontier to ensure that impartiality is attained at all cost (Agassi 78).The idea of a forming agent of responsibility should only be applicable when the action has an intentional bearing to the responsibility. Since the action of some groups may not be deliberate or rather done without making individual decision to take up the task, may not support the idea of collective responsibility on individual members.
The critiques of collective responsibility still hold firm to date. First, you will agree that it is impossible to admit that groups can collectively cause harm intentionally. Besides, the distinction of the group from individual members cannot warrant moral blame as required by moral responsibility (Hodgson 79). For this reason, Narveson argued that collective responsibility is senseless since it's hard to isolate genuine group action from the same action of other members of the group. Individual taking actions that they do not unswervingly relate to was viewed as a partial measure of social responsibility. In explaining social outcome caused by individual actions, choices, and mental stability, there should be a consideration of the social phenomena surrounding the individual. The recent debate on the relationship between social facts and the individual fact was majorly fueled by the idea of social events as the basis responsibility.
Action, intentions and group solidarity in collective responsibility
Critical analysis of the subject of collective responsibility was definitely necessary after the critique that came from various scholars. First is the assumption that moral blameworthiness is grounded on the evil intention of the agents of harm. This tries to explain the possibility of the group being faulty in a way. Like any other entity, we do not expect complete perfection from the group. However, the critics did not fail to question the group intention. How possible can the group be the conveyor of shame and guilt? How can the genuineness of the group be established in regards to the evil plan? The entire concept was in one way or another perplexing. Does it mean the group is not proficient enough to make choices? Despite the endless controversies, Narveson still acknowledges the essence of collective responsibility though to a limited degree. He also agreed to the fact that collective responsibility did not exploit the entire concept of mental ability. Unlike individual responsibility, there is no recognition of the fact that choices are informed by the mental mind state of a person at a particular time.
Culture
There are variations in cultures due to the different moral beliefs and practices. In Patterns of culture, cultural difference is ostensible even on the issues we are supposed to reconcile on (Benedict 78). As soon as a new idea is accepted as common belief, it will be another trustworthy sort of satisfying life. We shall attain a more realistic social faith, recognized as grounds of hope and as new foundations for tolerance, the coexisting and evenly consistent patterns of life which human race has created on the basis of being. We might hypothesize that in the issue of taking life, all people would concur on Condemnation. However, in the matter of homicide, it may be held that one kills by custom for the sake of his children or that husband has the right to life over his wife or the responsibility of the child of the child to kill his/her parents before they are old. For instance, along with some people, a person suffers anguish at having caused unintended death, among others is just an issue of no regret. Moreover, some crimes may be punishable by law or considered as a sin by the supreme beings. Such variations may lead to questioning whether any morals are universally accepted. Contrasts in ethical practices across various cultures, raise a vital matter in ethics which is the concept of moral relativism.
The theory of Ethical relativism
According to the proponents of ethical relativism theory, morality is relative to the norms one's culture. Consequently, the suitability of an act depends on the principles of the societies that practice it. Nevertheless, the similar action may be deemed as right in a different society. According to this theory, there are no universal moral values. The Ethical relativism has been criticized by some scholars. These scholars claim that if the rightness or wrongness of an action depends on society norms which imply that one ought to respect the norms of one's society and deviate from those standards is to act immorally. However such idea is just meant to promote social conventionality, but it doesn't leave space for moral improvement in the society. Similarly, members of one community may hold diverse views on practices. For instance, in the USA, there are a variety of moral opinions on issues ranging from abortion and cloning of animals then one ought to ask himself what constitute right or wrong action when the consensus in social circles is missing. Even though the theory has been criticized by various scholars, it is of important since it warns us against the risks of having an assumption that our inclinations are fixed on some idyllic rational value.
Deontological theories
This theory is based on the morality on some duties and responsibilities .this theory states that some of the actions may be regarded as right or wrong in spite of the consequences that may be an outcome of the actions later. Similarly, the theory states that what may make an action right or wrong is the traditional values which are considered by the members of the society as right or wrong. consequently, it is the duty of an individual to conduct himself or herself in conformity with the moral standard that is extensively accepted by the society regardless of behaving differently. Despite the endless controversies, Narveson still acknowledges the essence of collective responsibility though to a limited degree. He also agreed to the fact that collective responsibility did not exploit the entire concept of mental ability. Examining the credibility of moral responsibility should have the frontier to ensure that impartiality is attained at all cost (Agassi 78).The idea of a forming agent of responsibility should only be applicable when the action has an intentional bearing to the responsibility.
Conclusion
Most people suffering from individual deficit disorder lack the ability to find valuable choices in their reckless lifestyle. Besides, they blame others for their action and tend to disregard their thought in relation to emotional concerns. Despite the above situation, knowing oneself much better could be more rewarding especially if one is a victim of responsibility deficit disorder. Being able to examine actions and taking responsibility could actually evade the premeditated effect of responsibility deficit disorder. Choices for taking responsibility for one's deeds are undeniably momentous. Methodological individualism is a field of Social Science that tends to explain how social phenomena could result in individual actions which are reflected through personal intention and motives. The doctrine of the methodological individual is greatly concerned with the relation that exists between society and individuals. Most theories present this doctrine in relation to reductionism. They tend to be more reductive on the issues pertaining to individuals' reaction to events. Despite the doctrine of methodological individualism spreading far and wide, we cannot dispute the critique that the doctrine received from other proponents of the same doctrine in as much as they tend to have similar opinions on the ideas concerning their views on individual responsibility; Narveson repeatedly pushed forth his theory on collective responsibility. The idea of methodological individualism was closely defined in relation to the human behavior defined by the mental stability of an individual. Moreover, we can say that some of the human actions are automatically prompted by the mental state. The collective moral responsibility attempts to examine the extent to which plural subject can account for moral responsibility on their individual members without many difficulties.
Works cited
Benedict, Ruth. Patterns of culture. Vol. 8. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2014.
Narveson, Jan. Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice: Essays on Moral and Political Philosophy. Rowman & Littlefield, 2012.
Lukes, Steven. "Individualism." (2007).
Lukes, Steven. "Methodological individualism reconsidered." Sociological theory and philosophical analysis (1970): 76-88.
Agassi, Joseph. "Methodological individualism." The British journal of sociology 11.3 (1960): 244-270.
Hodgson, Geoffrey M. "Meanings of methodological individualism." Journal of Economic Methodology 14.2 (2007): 211-226.
Cramer, Christopher. "Homo economicus goes to war: methodological individualism, rational choice and the political economy of war." World development 30.11 (2012): 1845-1864.
