This paper argues that a more adequate account of responsibility can be developed by drawing on Gary Watson’s distinction between attributability and accountability, together with his later elaboration of responsibility in terms of attributability, accountability, answerability, and culpability, to provide a structured analytical framework for mapping these relations with greater precision.
Abstract
The increasing integration of artificial intelligence into decision-making processes has intensified questions about how responsibility should be understood within socio-technical systems. Although debates surrounding the responsibility gap have identified important challenges for existing models of responsibility, they often leave underexamined the internal structure of responsibility itself, treating it as a one-dimensional concept despite comprising multiple analytically distinct normative relations. This paper argues that a more adequate account can be developed by drawing on Gary Watson’s distinction between attributability and accountability, together with his later elaboration of responsibility in terms of attributability, accountability, answerability, and culpability. These distinctions provide the basis for analysing responsibility as a multi-layered structure composed of distinct but related normative dimensions. This perspective makes it possible to examine responsibility under conditions of technological mediation without attributing moral agency or moral responsibility to artificial intelligence systems. Building on this framework, I develop eight sub-dimensions of blame designed to capture how responsibility relations are differentiated and reconfigured within socio-technical systems. The resulting account reconceives the responsibility gap not as a single problem, but as a set of structurally distinct layers between responsibility relations. The paper’s contribution is to provide a structured analytical framework for mapping these relations with greater precision, thereby clarifying how responsibility is organised in socio-technical environments while preserving human and institutional actors as the primary bearers of accountability and culpability.
As autonomous AI systems increasingly cause real-world harm, traditional responsibility frameworks—anchored in free will and the capacity to suffer—have proved inadequate, resulting in what scholars call a "responsibility gap". This study explores the conceptual viability of artificial moral responsibility and delineat...
Xiao-Ke Xia· Advances in Humanities Resea...· 0 citations
Artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare is assumed to introduce risks that are not easily addressed by dominant philosophical models for thinking about responsibility. When an AI tool makes an error that results in patient harm, the question of who is responsible is rarely straightforward. Dominant models of respons...
B. Ferlito, M. De Proost, S. Segers· Monash Bioethics Review· 0 citations
This paper treats anthropocentrism as a relational standing-order rather than only as a claim about intrinsic value. Anthropocentric arrangements give default priority to human convenience and self-image while shifting vulnerability and accountability costs elsewhere. The argument integrates moral deskilling, responsib...
Yongho Choi· Philosophy & Social Crit...· 0 citations
This paper argues that moral responsibility can fail under technologically mediated conditions in two structurally connected ways. First, agents may act from motivational states significantly shaped by external formative processes whose influence remains partially opaque to reflective awareness. Second, institutions ma...
The study demonstrates how MHC can be translated from an ethical principle into governance practice and shows that meaningful control depends not only on human involvement in decisions, but also on defined purposes and boundaries, operational procedures for review and correction, legal safeguards, and institutional cap...
Tak-Ming Yu, Xia Zheng, Hoi-Kuen Ng· AI and Ethics· 0 citations
When, if ever, is it permissible to afford special consideration to friends and family? How can we strive to be objective in our thinking, and is this always a feasible or appropriate aim?
This book examines the categories of impartiality and objectivity by showing how they frame certain debates in epistemology, moral...
DeLapp Kevin· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.