- Argument‹2 of 2
The definition of responsibility
Responsibility does make sense as it plays such an essential role in everyday life. We have responsibility over our own affairs, such as maintaining employment, and the responsibility to look after others, such as the safety of children. Therefore, we do possess responsibility despite our biological constraints.
The argument
The argument answers the question by examining what the word actually picks out. Responsibility is defined as a moral, legal, or mental accountability. When you have responsibility, it is your duty to be in charge, so you can make decisions relating to the situation. The definition already holds together the two elements that sceptical accounts tend to prise apart: an obligation owed to someone, and the standing to decide. If the concept were incoherent it would come apart at exactly that joint — but the definition joins the two without strain. Responsibility is also a part of everyday life rather than a term of art. An employee has responsibility to deliver their company's mission, a teacher has responsibility over their student's learning, and parents have responsibility over their children's upbringing and wellbeing. These are not marginal or contested uses of the word; they are how it does its ordinary work, and each names a real relationship in which someone is held to answer for an outcome and makes decisions accordingly. This highlights how responsibility does make sense because it plays such an important role in so many areas of people's daily lives. The reply to the biological objection follows from that observation. Any claim that our biological constraints leave no room for responsibility has to explain why the concept is applied constantly, and successfully, by the very beings said to be constrained. We possess responsibility despite our biological restraints because we apply it to our everyday life, which is a human action — the applying is itself something people do, performed by creatures whose biology is not in dispute. A concept that biology supposedly ruled out could not be exercised this pervasively by biological creatures, so whatever else those constraints limit, they do not eliminate responsibility.
Premises
Counter-arguments
Sceptics reply that the argument shows only that we use the word "responsibility" and assign social roles, not that genuine responsibility exists. That people are called responsible in daily life is exactly what the opposing position questions: if human choices are the product of prior causes beyond our control, then the practice of holding people accountable could be a useful fiction rather than evidence of real moral responsibility. Pointing to employees, teachers and parents describes how the concept is applied, not whether it is metaphysically justified, so the argument arguably assumes the very thing it needs to prove.
Rejecting the premises
[Rejecting P1] Defining responsibility as accountability states the concept but does not show it corresponds to a real capacity that survives the challenge from determinism. [Rejecting P2] That people occupy roles labelled "responsible" shows the practice is widespread, not that the underlying accountability is genuine rather than a convenient social convention. [Rejecting P3] Applying responsibility in daily life demonstrates habit and social utility; it does not establish that our biological constraints leave room for the freedom responsibility requires.