6.2 The imperative of responsibility

The widely known work "The Imperative of Responsibility" by the German-American philosopher Hans Jonas (1903 - 1993) has decisively expanded the discussion on responsibility. Published in 1979, his discussion of responsibility reflects on the technical and nuclear possibilities for the destruction of humanity that emerged in the 20th century. The principle of responsibility thematises nothing less than human existence in its entirety and in general. It expands the concepts of responsibility that had been established until then. Due to the technical possibilities that humans have developed, they have the power to destroy themselves and the earth. In other words, humans are in a position to extinguish all life on earth. This creates a responsibility that goes far beyond the basic question structure of "Who (subject) is responsible for what (object) and to whom (authority)?".

Example

The responsibility that arises in this context has a different quality than the responsibility for roles that a mining professional has towards their employer, for example. It also has a different quality than the moral responsibility of a HR-head in a mining company who, with reference to human dignity, defies an acquaintance working for a head hunter and refuses to share details of the company’s mining professionals.

A few theoretical considerations are required to clarify this new quality.

The imperative of responsibility is based on human existence and thus also on the conditions for responsibility in general. In order to speak meaningfully of responsibility, human existence must be presupposed. Without existence, one could say, there is no responsibility. Conversely, however, one could also say: without responsibility (in the sense of: without acting responsibly) there is no existence. Because due to its immense technological possibilities, man has the power to extinguish the existence of human life. And it is clear: "The demands of responsibility grow in proportion to the deeds of power".

With this conception of responsibility, the object (for what?) and the authority (towards whom?) of responsibility fall into one. This means that we, as subjects of our actions, are responsible both for human existence (object) and towards human existence (authority). In addition, the previous "anthropocentric monopoly of most former ethical systems" is broken through. For in the earlier ethical systems, it was the interests and rights of humans that were to be respected by ethical behaviour. In principle, these ethical duties towards humans retain their validity. "But now the whole biosphere of the planet with all its plenitude of species, newly revealed in its vulnerability to man’s excessive intervention, claims its share of the respect owed to all that is an end in itself–that is: to all that is alive.“

It is life, the living itself, that has become the focus of responsibility, not just man with his interests. Man is no longer only man an end in himself; in the imperative of responsibility, nature is now also recognised as an end in itself. Thus nature is no longer a mere disposable mass for man to intervene in according to his interests. Nature is no longer a mere means to man's end. "As a planetary power of the first rank, he [man, author's note] can no longer think only of himself." In the imperative of responsibility, man is responsible to nature, he is in a sense (theoretically) accountable to it. In the most fundamental sense, man is thus responsible for ensuring that responsibility is further possible. The imperative of responsibility places responsibility at the centre of our actions and is also the prerequisite for responsibility in general. Without nature, without existence, without humanity, the notion of responsibility makes no sense. Where there is nothing, nothing can or needs to be taken responsibility for. In short, we are responsible for the conditions of existence, i.e. for nature.

It is quite obvious that mining affects the landscape and hence human life and nature. Thus it is probably not far-fetched to conclude that from an ethical consideration mining bears responsibility for existence (of nature and mankind). With the arguments of Hans Jonas and the imperative of responsibility, which is still effective today, it is only a small (argumentative) step to also consider dignity for nature. Especially in connection with Kant's insights, which flow into the concept of human dignity, the following applies: "What has a price can also be replaced by something else as an equivalent; what, on the other hand, is above all price, and therefore does not allow for an equivalent, has a dignity." If one follows the imperative of responsibility, according to which nature bears its purpose in itself, then one would logically have to ascribe at least an intrinsic value to nature as a whole, of which humans are a part. In the case of the destruction of nature and all life, there would no longer be an equivalent that could be put in its place. There would be no price to pay except that of annihilation itself. The conceptual proximity to dignity, at least in the sense of an end in itself, thus appears to be given.

Web­source

YouTube

When you load this media, content is loaded by the service providers and your IP address is transfered to them.

Give consent and load media

 Med. 6.2: L'éthique du futur de Jonas

YouTube – UVED

(time to watch 8.5 minutes)

Further Reading: Hans Jonas on Responsibility in the Age of Artificial Intelligence”, Andres Felipe Barrero, 18. April 2024, The Collector.

(reading time about 15 minutes)

As humans, we can interfere with nature through mining activities. We might turn nature into a mere means for our own purposes and possibly change it irreversibly. This makes obvious the vulnerability of nature and therefore its need for protection. The local impact of mining on the environment is probably well graspable and concretely measurable, e.g. it manifests in deforestation and erosion. However if we look at the impact of mining activities on our planet from a global perspective then the changes caused might best be grasped as estimates. This includes calculations of CO2 emissions, for instance.

The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety (BMU) has recognised the problem and writes in its key issues paper from May 2019:

Cita­tion

From: BMU – Bundesministerium für Umwelt, Naturschutz und nukleare Sicherheit (2019) BMU19, authors‘ translation Original Quote

The fact that digitalisation also has a significant impact on the environment and nature has long been underestimated. If it continues unabated, it will become an accelerant for the ecological and social crises of our planet because it further accelerates the transgression of planetary boundaries: More energy and raw material consumption, more consumption and more transport.

If the mining profession has the duty of ensuring standards in, for example, climate, environmental and resource protection, then it is at least indirectly responsible for nature with its expertise. And it contributes to its existence. Conversely: In the event of damage to the environment due to inadequate mining activities, the relevant experts would be "guilty" in terms of the imperative of responsibility not only towards their fellow human beings, but also towards nature as a whole. This applies all the more to future consequences. Even if this conclusion is very far-fetched and hardly practically applicable, it points out that the fundamental responsibility of the actors in mining can also be defined very far-reaching depending on the situation. By no means it ends at the factory gates of the institutions where they work.