Anandita Mukherji

The Moral Status of Institutional Negligence

Introduction

The moral status of institutional negligence. Examines the moral status of negligent actions, arguing that institutional negligence is significantly more blameworthy than individual negligence due to organizations' distinct capacities.

Abstract

The moral status of negligent actions presents a unique quandary because these actions are prima facie unintentional, but preventable with due care. Legally culpable negligent acts occur without malicious intent but result in harm, and the agent owed care to the victim, but failed to act with the appropriate care due. In this essay, I argue that the moral status of negligent actions varies depending on whether the agent is an individual, or an organization or institution. I contend that while negligence is often only minimally morally blameworthy for individual agents, it is significantly more blameworthy for an organization or institution. As agents, institutions are different in kind from individuals, partly due to their superior capacities, which give them the ability to shape their own character, and therefore the moral fault of their vices that lead to culpably negligent actions are morally weightier than those of individuals.

Review

This essay tackles the complex issue of the moral status of negligent actions, a topic often perplexing due to its intersection of unintentionality and preventability. It effectively sets the stage by delineating the legal parameters of negligence, where harm occurs without malicious intent despite a failure of due care. The central thesis posits a significant differentiation in moral blameworthiness between individual and institutional negligence, arguing that the latter is considerably more reprehensible. This distinction is immediately compelling and addresses a timely philosophical and practical concern, positioning the paper as a valuable contribution to contemporary ethical discourse. A key strength of this work lies in its sophisticated conceptualization of institutions as distinct moral agents. By asserting that institutions possess superior capacities and the ability to shape their own character, the author provides a robust framework for elevating their moral responsibility. This approach offers a valuable contribution to the literature on organizational ethics and collective responsibility, moving beyond mere aggregation of individual faults to a more holistic understanding of institutional agency. The argument that the vices leading to institutional negligence are morally weightier is a provocative and important claim that warrants serious consideration, promising to reshape discussions around corporate accountability and ethical governance. While the argument for heightened institutional blameworthiness is well-articulated, the essay could benefit from further exploration of the precise mechanisms through which institutions "shape their own character" and how these mechanisms directly translate into moral fault. Distinguishing more sharply between systemic failures inherent in institutional design and the cumulative effect of individual negligence within an institution might strengthen the argument. Future work could also engage with potential counterarguments or boundary cases, such as institutions operating under extreme resource constraints or those whose "character" is demonstrably hijacked by a few malicious individuals, to further refine the scope and application of its compelling thesis.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.