Cited by 227Ethics and Social Impacts of AIPhilosophical Ethics and TheoryEthics in Business and Education

Faultless responsibility: on the nature and allocation of moral responsibility for distributed moral actions

Open access
Floridi, Luciano·2016·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences

Abstract

The concept of distributed moral responsibility (DMR) has a long history. When it is understood as being entirely reducible to the sum of (some) human, individual and already morally loaded actions, then the allocation of DMR, and hence of praise and reward or blame and punishment, may be pragmatically difficult, but not conceptually problematic. However, in distributed environments, it is increasingly possible that a network of agents, some human, some artificial (e.g. a program) and some hybrid (e.g. a group of people working as a team thanks to a software platform), may cause distributed moral actions (DMAs). These are morally good or evil (i.e. morally loaded) actions caused by local interactions that are in themselves neither good nor evil (morally neutral). In this article, I analyse DMRs that are due to DMAs, and argue in favour of the allocation, by default and overridably, of full moral responsibility (faultless responsibility) to all the nodes/agents in the network causally relevant for bringing about the DMA in question, independently of intentionality. The mechanism proposed is inspired by, and adapts, three concepts: back propagation from network theory, strict liability from jurisprudence and common knowledge from epistemic logic. This article is part of the themed issue ‘The ethical impact of data science’.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsta.2016.0112

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Even where problems are recognised in AI systems, they can rarely be traced back to a single team member or action; responsibility must be assigned across a network of actors.

    “Even where problems are recognised, they can rarely be traced back to a single team member or action; 43 responsibility must be assigned across a network of actors that influenced the system's design, training, and configuration.”

    From Principles alone cannot guarantee ethical AI (2019) · cites this paper as [43]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 38 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Floridi, L.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Floridi, Luciano
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Published
2016-12-28
Volume
374
Issue
2083
Pages
20160112
ISSN
  • 1364-503X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2962
OpenAlex
W2553338792
Cited by
227
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
17.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PhilPapers (PhilPapers Foundation) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Alan Turing Institute (TU/B/000055)
  • Università degli Studi di Milano
  • University of Oxford
  • Universidade do Minho
  • Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/N02334X/1, EP/N023013/1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Ethics in Business and Education
Keywords
allocation of responsibility, artificial agents, software platform, strict liability, backpropagation, common knowledge, intentionality
MeSH terms
Humans, Models, Theoretical, Morals, Social Responsibility

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review