5.3 Guilt and liability

One conceptual association with responsibility is the concept of guilt, which in philosophical terms is a kind of precursor to responsibility. As a rule, guilt is about the consequences of action and thus also about the attribution of responsibility. One is guilty if one has committed an act that is qualified as misconduct. Depending on the body assessing the quality of the behaviour, guilt can be interpreted theologically, ethically or legally.

In the contemporary age, the notion of guilt is mainly found in criminal law. Here it plays an important role in the assessment of a possible criminal offence. In a criminal law sense, guilt is understood as the individual culpability of the criminal offence. This is based on the fact that the guilty party is causally involved in an event. He or she must have caused or contributed to it. This means that an event as it occurred would not have happened without the actions of the accused person. However, causation alone in the sense of participation is not sufficient to determine the guilt of a person for an event. Culpability is also required.

Cita­tion

From: Aschenbach (2001) Ac01, p. 1272, authors‘ translation Original Quote

Culpability means that the perpetrator has acted unlawfully although, according to his abilities and under the specific circumstances of the offence, he was in a position to be guided by the standardised duty of lawful conduct in the case at hand.

In the area of mining, for example, the following case could be scrutinised.

The driver of an excavator in an open-cast mine causes an accident due to a defect in his work equipment. It turns out that he has been overworked for some time due to his heavy workload therefore has not thoroughly checked his excavator.

At the same time, it turns out that the company's safety engineer knew about the potential risks of this type of excavator, but this information was not passed on within the company.

Is it the “fault” of the safety engineer that the source of danger was not pointed out at an early stage due to a lack of communication? Or is it the “fault” of the excavator operator who was sloppy in his inspection? From a legal perspective, the question can now be asked: Who is liable for the damage and the preceding error? Who is at fault? Who is liable for the deed?

In each case, being at fault and bearing responsibility are about the attribution of an event or circumstance. It is about blaming someone for something and - in the legal sense - holding them liable or considering them guilty, or - in the ethical and moral sense - holding them accountable. The transitions between the use and meaning of the terms guilt and responsibility are fluid, especially in everyday language. In the current ethical discussion, the concept of guilt is hardly ever used. However, the concept of responsibility has risen to the rank of a key ethical category in the 20th century. For this reason, as well as because of its ubiquity in public life and diverse uses, the focus below will be on responsibility.