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.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bayertz, Kurt. 1995. Verantwortung: Prinzip oder Problem? Stuttgart: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
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.
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.
Brand, Steward. 1976. Conversation with Gregory Bateson and Margaret Mead. CoEvolutionary Quarterly 10(21): 32–44. doi:10.4472/9783037342695.0016.
Bühl, Daniel. 1990. Verantwortung für soziale Systeme. Grundzüge einer globalen Gesellschaftsethik. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.
Clark, John M. 1916. The changing basis of economic responsibility. Journal of Political Economy 24(3): 209–229. doi:10.1086/252799.
Coase, Ronald Harry. 1960. The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics 3(1): 1–44.
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.
Düwell, Markus, Christoph Hübenthal, and Micha H. Werner. 2011. Handbuch Ethik. Stuttgart: Metzler.
Feinberg, Joel. 1968. Collective responsibility. Journal of Philosophy 65(21): 674–688.
Foerster, Heinz von. 1981a. Notes on an epistemology for living things. In Observing systems, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 258–271. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.
———. 1981b. Objects: Tokens for (eigen-) behaviors. In Observing systems, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 274–285. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.
———. 1981c. On constructing a reality. In Observing systems, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 288–309. Seaside: Intersystems Publications.
———. 2003. Ethics and second-order cybernetics. In Understanding understanding: Essays on cybernetics and cognition, ed. Heinz von Foerster, 287–304. New York: Springer.
French, Peter A. 1971. Individual and collective responsibility: The massacre at My Lai. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Publishing Company.
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.
Hayek, Friedrich August von. 1976. Individualismus und wirtschaftliche Ordnung. Salzburg: Neugebauer.
Kauffman, Louis Hirsch. 2003. Eigenforms – Objects as tokens of eigenbehaviour. Cybernetics and human knowing 10(3–4): 73–89.
———. 2005. EigenForm. Kybernetes 34(1–2): 129–150. doi:10.1108/03684920510575780.
Ladd, John. 1992. Bhopal: Moralische Verantwortung, normale Katastrophen und Bürgertugend. In Wirtschaft und Ethik, ed. Hans Lenk and Matthias Maring, 285–300. Stuttgart: Reclam.
Lenk, Hans. 1998. Konkrete Humanität. Vorlesungen über Verantwortung und Menschlichkeit. Suhrkamp: Frankfurt am Main.
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.
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.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1977. Differentiation of society. Canadian Journal of Sociology 2(1): 29–53. doi:10.1086/227995.
———. 1984. Soziale Systeme – Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Marx, Karl. 1964. Capital. London: J. M. Dent & Sons.
Mellema, Gregory. 1985. Groups, responsibility and the failure to act. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 2(3): 57–66. doi:10.5840/ijap1985232.
———. 1988. Individuals, groups and shared moral responsibility. New York: P. Lang.
Nunner-Winkler, Gertrud. 1993. Verantwortung. In Lexikon der Wirtschaftsethik, ed. Georges Enderle, Karl Homann, and Martin Honecker, 1185–1192. Freiburg: Herder.
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.
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.
Rawls, John. 1993. Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
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.
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.
Young, Iris M. 2005. Responsibility and global justice: A social connection model. Anales de la Cátedra Francisco Suárez 39: 709–726.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52099-5_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-52098-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-52099-5
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)