The concept of blame and responsibility

 

Making judgments concerning whether an individual is responsible for a certain behavior or event is a fundamental aspect of the relationships that individuals have with one another in society. This is especially the case when it comes to the relationship between members of a society and their leaders (Williams, 2003). Blame and responsibility are therefore fundamental and familiar parts of the moral practices of any society and they will often end up determining the way that relationships between individuals are conducted. This paper considers the concept of blame and responsibility in the context of crisis management.

One of the most important aspects of blame and responsibility is that there is the judgment of an individual based on their behavior. This is done through individuals essentially undertaking to attribute certain capacities to a person. In this way, the judgment is based on whether the individual involved has been able to exercise their capabilities effectively and in a morally responsible manner. For example, the way that the second Bush administration handled its two major crises, namely the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, were important bases for the allocation of blame and responsibility (Hart et al., 2009). The actions that were taken by this administration were highly significant because they allowed the public to judge it based on its performance. These crises can therefore be considered viable example of the way that the concept of blame and responsibility can be applied.

There are a number of ways through which blame can be allocated. These are based on the way that the individual in authority handles the situation or crisis at hand. The first address made by President Bush soon after 9/11 is an example of the way that he managed to take control of the situation in stride and therefore avoid blame and take responsibility as the leader of the nation (Woodward, 2012, p. 1). He presided over a highly effective emergency response operation that provided him with considerable support from all sectors of society. This was demonstrated through the lack of criticism from all parts of media; right, left, or center. Furthermore, despite his initial bewilderment following his learning the news of the attacks, the made sense of the situation and took a proactive approach when it came to the way that government responded to it through effective coordination and decision making. He further took responsibility through the making of meaning of the situation as he framed a narrative concerning the crisis and how best to respond to it (Landy, 2004).

However, when dealing with crises, it is important to ensure that attribution errors are overcome. Attribution errors come about because of the biases that individuals have so that when things take a positive turn, they are attributed as having come about internally, while negative events are blamed on external actors (Rahimi et al., 2016). Thus, while Bush had received considerable praise for his handling of the 9/11 crisis, the same was not the case with Katrina, which saw him become the target of harsh public condemnation. His leadership during this crisis was seen as lacking of initiative and responsibility. He was therefore blamed for the disastrous emergency response that came about as a result. This shows a need to be aware of and avoid the biases the come with attribution errors so that they can be overcome.

Blame and responsibility is a concept that has been demonstrated through a consideration of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 and Katrina. It shows the way that biases play an important role in their attribution. Therefore, there is the need to ensure that there is the attainment of a level of consciousness concerning how individuals will often behave when assigning blame or praise for actions.