, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp 219–231 | Cite as

Ethics of responsibilities distributions in a technological culture

  • Hans LenkEmail author
Original Article


In this paper, I develop and differentiate some problems of the interaction between corporations, individuals and the general public as well as institutions like the state or international non-governmental organizations as well as super-national organizations. Firms or corporations are nowadays much more international than they used to be; they are typically multinational enterprises giving rise to special transnational problems of transactions, interchanges and—indeed also—responsibilities ranging over national borders and restricted areas. In our culture, we have to deal with rather ramified types of individual and collective as well as specific corporate responsibilities tending to reach out beyond national borders, specific state law restrictions and even business systems and economies. The traditional personal and individual responsibility and their different forms will not do to cope with all the respective international, intercultural and inter-sectoral problems of modern corporations and their international interactions. In the paper, I have also discussed the question: Do multinational organizations and corporations have a sort of specific corporate responsibility, and if so, against whom and for what—except for their share- and stakeholders?


Moral Responsibility Ethics Technology Culture 



The paper is of enormous significance to the special issue “Philosophy of Technological Culture” in several ways. The ethics of responsibilities distributions play a crucial role in enforcing a paradigm in the critical development of science and technology which seems to open a perspective for the philosophy of technology and culture. The ethics of responsibilities distributions is of vital importance for our technological culture—Note from the Guest Editor.


  1. Bühl WL (1998) Verantwortung für soziale systeme. Klett-Cotta, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  2. Eddy R, Potter E, Page B (1976) Destination disaster. Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. European Agency and Health at Work (1985) Directive/374/EEC—liability for defective products. Accessed 21 Nov 2015
  4. French PA (1984) Collective and corporate responsibility. Columbia UP, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  5. Giere RN (1990) Explaining science. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hart HLA (1968) Punishment and responsibility. Clarendon, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  8. Heidbrink L (2003) Kritik der Verantwortung. Velbrück, WeilerswistGoogle Scholar
  9. Hennessey JW, Gert B (1985) Moral rules and moral ideals: a useful distinction in business and professional practice. J Bus Ethics 4:105–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jonas H (1984) The imperative of responsibility: in search of an ethics for the technological age. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  11. Kant I (1968) Kants Werke (Akademie-Textausgabe). De Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  12. Ladd J (1975) The ethics of participation. Nomos 16:98–125Google Scholar
  13. Lenk H (1979) Pragmatische Vernunft. Reclam, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  14. Lenk H (1982) Zur Sozialphilosophie der Technik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
  15. Lenk H (1988) Distributability problems and challenges to the future resolution of responsibility conflicts. Philos Technol 3(4):1–25.
  16. Lenk H (1988b) Konkrete Humanität. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
  17. Lenk H (ed) (1991) Wissenschaft und Ethik. Reclam, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  18. Lenk H (1992) Zwischen Wissenschaft und Ethik. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
  19. Lenk H (2003) Responsibility and risk minimization: outline of an attribution-based approach regarding modern technological and societal systems. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf 13(3):203–222MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lenk H (2005/2015a, 2nd ed) Responsibility: German perspectives. In Mitcham C (ed) Encyclopedia of science, technology, and ethics, vol 3. Thompson-Gale, Detroit, pp 1618–1623; (2nd ed. by) Holbrook B, Mitcham C (2015) Ethics, science, technology, and engineering, vol 3. Gale-Centage Learning, Farmington Hills, pp 610–616Google Scholar
  21. Lenk H (2007) Global technoscience and responsibility. LIT, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenk H (2010) Das flexible Vielfachwesen. Velbrück, WeilerswistGoogle Scholar
  23. Lenk H (2015b) Human-soziale Verantwortung. Zur Sozialphilosophie der Verantwortlichkeiten. Projektverlag, Bochum-FreiburgGoogle Scholar
  24. Lenk H (2016) Typologien, Arten und Polaritäten (working title). In: Heidbrink L, Langbehn C, Sombetzki J (eds) Handbuch Verantwortung. Springer, Wiesbaden (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  25. Lenk H, Maring M (1990) Responsibility for land use and the problem of social traps. In: Fitch DBS, Pikalo A (eds) Socio-economic Aspects of Land Use Planning. Lang, Frankfurt/M, pp 31–50Google Scholar
  26. Lenk H, Maring M (eds) (1991) Technikverantwortung. Güterabwägung Riskiobewertung - Verhaltenskodizes. Lang, Frankfurt/MGoogle Scholar
  27. Lenk H, Maring M (eds) (1992) Wirtschaft und Ethik. Reclam, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  28. Lenk H, Maring M (1996a) Responsibility and social traps. Int J Appl Philos 1:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lenk H, Maring M (1996b) Engineering between can and ought. Interdiscip Sci Rev 21:316–323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lenk H, Maring M (2001) Responsibility and technology. In: Auhagen A, Bierhoff H-W (eds) Responsibility—the many faces of a social phenomenon. Routledge, London, pp 93–107Google Scholar
  31. Lenk H, Ropohl G (eds) (1987, 1993) Technik und Ethik. Reclam, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  32. Maring M (2001) Kollektive und korporative Verantwortung. LIT, MünsterGoogle Scholar
  33. Perrow C (1984) Normal accidents. Basic, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Simon HA (1951) Models of man. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Simon HA (1979) Models of thought. Yale, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  36. Werhane PH (1985) Persons, rights, and corporations. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The International Institute of PhilosophyParisFrance
  2. 2.Prof. EmeritusKarlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)KarlsruheGermany

Personalised recommendations