Months ago an enormous conflict erupted on dozens of LinkedIn forums nationwide in which hundreds and even thousands of individuals became enthralled over several controversial issues concerning the construction industry. Out of that controversy raised the dreaded subject of “censorship” and what it has done to the conversation. Needless to say as a result of the censorship button being forcibly applied by the moderators of these collective forums, discussion of vitally all important issues have been stifled and for all intents and purposes have been quelled and pushed to the bottom by a few to quite the “many”.
Why was this allowed to happen and who is responsible for allowing it to happen? Was it the “Collective responsibility” of all that were involved or was it simply the concept or doctrine, which according to certain individuals that all must be held responsible for other people's actions by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively collaborating in these actions. This is a shameful attitude to let happen because the “many” have now become so passive as to allow the few to dictate and control the conversation at hand.
Where this “Collective responsibility” has been widely applied in many large corporations, the entire workforce has been held responsible for failure to achieve corporate targets such as profits, irrespective of the performance of individuals or teams which may have achieved or overachieved within their areas of responsibility!
Why was this allowed to happen and who is responsible for allowing it to happen? Was it the “Collective responsibility” of all that were involved or was it simply the concept or doctrine, which according to certain individuals that all must be held responsible for other people's actions by tolerating, ignoring, or harboring them, without actively collaborating in these actions. This is a shameful attitude to let happen because the “many” have now become so passive as to allow the few to dictate and control the conversation at hand.
Where this “Collective responsibility” has been widely applied in many large corporations, the entire workforce has been held responsible for failure to achieve corporate targets such as profits, irrespective of the performance of individuals or teams which may have achieved or overachieved within their areas of responsibility!
As a result “Collective punishment” including measures that actually do extreme harm to the prospect of achieving future targets are being applied as a measure to 'teach' the workforce to conform or pay the price. When these corporate targets are achieved it is not the “many” that reap the rewards, but are those that have been carefully targeted as perceived by management to have contributed the most which is often disproportionate to the many. It is at these senior management levels that are primarily those in control of the “Censor” button that have the most to gain. The impact on the morale of the many by the use of this practice is commonly ignored as it is not measurable on balance sheets.
The question then becomes one of “Moral” responsibility? Is it the individual’s position on morality that deserves of praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission, in accordance with one's moral obligations or that of deciding what, if anything is morally obligatory when it becomes the principle concern of ethics?
What we have is a Duty (something "due" or "that which owed to others"; a "debt") that conveys a sense of moral commitment or obligation to someone or something. This moral commitment should result in sort of action, not some sort of passive feeling or mere recognition, but a duty to take action, something that a person theoretically commits them to its fulfillment without considering their own self-interest.
With this “Duty” comes an obligation, a course of action that someone is required to take, whether legally or morally. Other obligations also exist, obligations such as etiquette, social obligations, and even politically, where these obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled for the good of the many. Normally these legal obligations incur penalties for non-fulfillment for those who are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons.
Obligations vary from person to person: for example, a person holding a political office will generally have far more obligations than an average member of the many, who themselves will have more obligations than those not associated with the group as such. Obligations are generally granted in return for an increase in an individual's rights or power. For the many the obligation is participation and in return the many receive the benefits derived or achieved by the many!
Spencer K. Smartt
Founder and Charter Member
Dallas, TX.
No comments:
Post a Comment