Skip to main content

The Regulative Idea of Recursive Operations: A Second-Order Cybernetic Approach to Responsibility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Economic Responsibility

Part of the book series: Ethical Economy ((SEEP,volume 53))

Abstract

Drawing on a cybernetic understanding of systems, this paper introduces the broader notion of “second order responsibility” and distinguishes it from a traditional model of responsibility, which, in terms of cybernetics, can be described as “first order responsibility.” We regard this concept as being capable of addressing major shortcomings related to the standard concept of individual responsibility without retreating to a rejectionist position, which dismisses the concept of responsibility in modern society at all. Instead of ascribing responsibility to actors, and analyzing it in terms of actors, actions and consequences—which is becoming more and more difficult in light of interdependent and increasingly competitive interactions in modern societies—we propose a perspective that applies responsibility to responsibility itself, i.e. to the process of negotiating the norm of ascribing responsibilities, which, a priori, cannot be taken as universally given in a pluralistic, modern society.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bayertz, Kurt. 1995. Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beckmann, Markus, and Ingo Pies. 2008. Ordo-responsibility – Conceptual reflections towards a semantic innovation. In Corporate citizenship, contractarianism and ethical theory on philosophical foundations of business ethics, ed. Jesús Conill, Christoph Lütge, and Tatjana Schönwälder-Kuntze, 87–115. Aldershot/London: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bierhoff, Hans-Werner, and Eva Neumann. 2006. Soziale Verantwortung und Diffusion der Verantwortung. In Handbuch der Sozialpsychologie und Kommunikationspsychologie, ed. Hans-Werner Bierhoff and Eva Neumann, 174–179. Göttingen: Hogrefe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brand, Steward. 1976. Conversation with Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead. CoEvolutionary Quarterly 10(21): 32–44. doi:10.4472/9783037342695.0016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bühl, Daniel. 1990. Verantwortung für soziale Systeme. Grundzüge einer globalen Gesellschaftsethik. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, John M. 1916. The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journal of Political Economy 24(3): 209–229. doi:10.1086/252799.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coase, Ronald Harry. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3(1): 1–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, David E. 1972. Responsibility and the system. In Individual and collective responsibility: The massacre at My Lai, ed. Peter French, 81–100. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Düwell, Markus, Christoph Hübenthal, and Micha H. Werner. 2011. Handbuch Ethik. Stuttgart: Metzler.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Feinberg, Joel. 1968. Collective responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 65(21): 674–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foerster, Heinz von. 1981a. Notes on an epistemology for living things. In Observing systems, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 258–271. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981b. Objects: Tokens for (eigen-) behaviors. In Observing systems, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 274–285. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1981c. On constructing a reality. In Observing systems, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 288–309. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2003. Ethics and second-order cybernetics. In Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 287–304. New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • French, Peter A. 1971. Individual and collective responsibility: The massacre at My Lai. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Füllsack, Manfred. 2012. Information, meaning and eigenforms: In the light of sociology, agent- based modeling and AI. Information 3(3): 331–343. doi:10.3390/info3030331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayek, Friedrich August von. 1976. Individualismus und wirtschaftliche Ordnung. Salzburg: Neugebauer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kauffman, Louis Hirsch. 2003. Eigenforms – Objects as tokens of eigenbehaviour. Cybernetics and human knowing 10(3–4): 73–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2005. EigenForm. Kybernetes 34(1–2): 129–150. doi:10.1108/03684920510575780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, John. 1992. Bhopal: Moralische Verantwortung, normale Katastrophen und Bürgertugend. In Wirtschaft und Ethik, ed. Hans Lenk and Matthias Maring, 285–300. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, Hans. 1998. Konkrete Humanität. Vorlesungen über Verantwortung und Menschlichkeit. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenk, Hans, and Matthias Maring. 2001. Verantwortung. In Historisches Wörterbuch der Philosophie, ed. Joachim Ritter and Karlfried Gründer, Vol. 11, 569–575. Basel/Stuttgart: Schwabe.

    Google Scholar 

  • Löbler, Helge, and Michelle Wloka. 2015. ‘Loyalty’ between talk and action – Meaning as eigenforms of recursive operations. In Always ahead: Ideen für das Marketing, ed. Silke Bartsch and Christian Blümelhuber, 449–458. Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Luhmann, Niklas. 1977. Differentiation of society. Canadian Journal of Sociology 2(1): 29–53. doi:10.1086/227995.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1984. Soziale Systeme – Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marx, Karl. 1964. Capital. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mellema, Gregory. 1985. Groups, responsibility and the failure to act. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 2(3): 57–66. doi:10.5840/ijap1985232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 1988. Individuals, groups and shared moral responsibility. New York: P. Lang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunner-Winkler, Gertrud. 1993. Verantwortung. In Lexikon der Wirtschaftsethik, ed. Georges Enderle, Karl Homann, and Martin Honecker, 1185–1192. Freiburg: Herder.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pies, Ingo. 2000. Theoretische Grundlagen demokratischer Wirtschaftspolitik – Der Beitrag von Ronald Coase. In Ronald Coase’ Transaktionskosten-Ansatz, ed. Ingo Pies and Martin Leschke, 1–29. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pies, Ingo, Stefan Hielscher, and Markus Beckmann. 2009. Moral commitments and the societal role of business: An ordonomic approach to corporate citizenship. Business Ethics Quarterly 19(3): 375–401. doi:10.5840/beq200919322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ropohl, Günter. 1992. Ob man die Ambivalenz des technischen Fortschritts mit einer neuen Ethik meistern kann? In Wirtschaft und Ethik, ed. Hans Lenk and Matthias Maring, 47–78. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentinov, Vladislav, and Lioudmila Chatalova. 2014. Transaction costs, social costs, and open systems: Some common threads. Systems Research and Behavioral Science 31(2): 316–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, Iris M. 2005. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez 39: 709–726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zimmerli, Walther C. 1987. Wandelt sich die Verantwortung mit dem technischen Wandel? In Technik und Ethik, ed. Hans Lenk and Günter Ropohl, 92–111. Stuttgart: Reclam.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helge Löbler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hielscher, S., Löbler, H. (2017). The Regulative Idea of Recursive Operations: A Second-Order Cybernetic Approach to Responsibility. In: Haase, M. (eds) Economic Responsibility. Ethical Economy, vol 53. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52099-5_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics