Social responsibility

Aristotle determined that “Man is by nature a political animal.”[6]^: I.2

He saw ethics and politics as mutually-reinforcing: a citizen develops the virtues in large part so that they can contribute to making the polis an excellent and stable one. And the purpose of that was so that the polis would be fertile soil in which a thriving, virtuous citizenry could grow (and in order that there could be an appropriate political context in which one could successfully practice virtues like justice which require a political context).[6]^{: I.1–2, III.4, VII.1–3}[7]^{: II.1, V.6, X.9}

He believed that the polis is meant to be “a community of equals for the sake of a life which is potentially the best.”[6]^: VII.8 Some of the virtues in his scheme of virtue ethics, like magnificence and justice were inseparable from a sense of social responsibility.[7]^{: IV.2, V}

Cicero believed that “In no other realm does human excellence approach so closely the paths of the gods as it does in the founding of new and in the preservation of already founded communities.”[8]

In the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, he wrote that “That which isn't good for the hive isn't good for the bee.”[9]

In 1953, the book "Social responsibility of the businessman" published by the American economist Howard Bowen was one of the first to address the issue of social responsibility as it relates to business activity.[10]

The social responsibility of scientists and engineers can influence how robots are programmed

Are scientists and engineers morally responsible for the negative consequences that result from applications of their knowledge and inventions?[14] If scientists and engineers take pride in the positive achievements of science and technology, shouldn't they also accept responsibility for the negative consequences related to the use or abuse of scientific knowledge and technological innovations?[15] Scientists and engineers have a collective responsibility to examine the values embedded in the research problems they choose and the ethics of how they share their findings with the public.[16]

Committees of scientists and engineers are often involved in planning governmental and corporate research programs, including those devoted to the development of military technologies and weaponry.[17][18] Many professional societies and national organizations, such as the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in the United States, have ethical guidelines (see Engineering ethics and Research ethics for the conduct of scientific research and engineering).[19] Scientists and engineers, individually and collectively, have a special and greater responsibility than average citizens with respect to the generation and use of scientific knowledge.

Some argue that because of the complexity of social responsibility in research, scientists and engineers should not be blamed for all the evils created by new scientific knowledge and technological innovations.[14] First, there is fragmentation and diffusion of responsibility: Because of the intellectual and physical division of labor, the resulting fragmentation of knowledge, the high degree of specialization, and the complex and hierarchical decision-making process within corporations and government research laboratories, it is exceedingly difficult for individual scientists and engineers to control the applications of their innovations.[17] This fragmentation of work and decision-making results in fragmented moral accountability, often to the point where "everybody involved was responsible but none could be held responsible."[20]

Another problem is ignorance. The scientists and engineers cannot predict how their newly generated knowledge and technological innovations may be abused or misused. The excuse of ignorance is stronger for scientists involved in very basic and fundamental research where potential applications cannot be even envisioned, than for scientists and engineers involved in applied scientific research and technological innovation since in such work objectives are well-known. For example, most corporations conduct research on specific products or services that promise to yield profit for share-holders. Similarly, most of the research funded by governments is mission-oriented, such as protecting the environment, developing new drugs, or designing more lethal weapons. In cases where the application of scientific knowledge and technological innovation is well-known a priori, a scientist or engineer cannot escape responsibility for research and technological innovation that is morally dubious.[21] As John Forge writes in Moral Responsibility and the Ignorant Scientist: "Ignorance is not an excuse precisely because scientists can be blamed for being ignorant."[22]

Another point of view is that responsibility falls on those who provide the funding for the research and technological developments (in most cases corporations and government agencies). Because taxpayers provide the funds for government-sponsored research, they and the politicians that represent them should perhaps be held accountable for the uses and abuses of science.[23] In times past scientists could often conduct research independently, but today's experimental research requires expensive laboratories and instrumentation, making scientists dependent on those who pay for their studies.

Quasi-legal instruments, or soft law, has received some normative status in relation to private and public corporations in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights developed by the UNESCO International Bioethics Committee particularly in relation to child and maternal welfare.[24]^: 7 The International Organization for Standardization will "encourage voluntary commitment to social responsibility and will lead to common guidance on concepts, definitions and methods of evaluation."[25]