Emotional Contagion, Moral Responsibility and Punishment. Why Membership Diminishes Responsibility

Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)

• Introduction
• Collective Harm
• Penal Joint Offender Discrimination
  • German Penal Law
    • Aggravated Battery (§223 StGB)
    • Participating in a Brawl (§231 StGB)
  • British Penal Law
• Responsibility & Agency
  • Legal & Moral Responsibility
  • Agency
• Shared Responsibility
  • Individual & Group Responsibility
  • May's Account of Shared Responsibility
  • My Account of Shared Responsibility
    • Emotion & Decision-Making
    • Emotional Contagion
      • Receiver Vulnerability
      • Sender Potency
      • Empirical Evidence
    • Behavioural Implications of Emotional Contagion
    • Allocation of Moral Responsibility
      • Offenders
      • Bystanders

Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)

This paper aims to challenge existing arguments and legal frameworks concerning moral responsibility within group contexts. It specifically examines whether group affiliation affects the degree of moral responsibility assigned to individuals, focusing on situations where harm results from the actions of multiple individuals, not from a concerted plan. The paper investigates the impact of emotional contagion on agency and argues for a reevaluation of penal codes that disproportionately punish joint offenders.

• The influence of group membership on moral responsibility.
• The legal treatment of joint offenders in German and British penal law.
• The role of agency in moral responsibility and punishment.
• The impact of emotional contagion on individual agency and decision-making.
• The development of a framework for understanding shared responsibility.

Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)

Introduction: This introduction sets the stage for the thesis, establishing the debate surrounding group affiliation and moral responsibility, and its implications for penal law. The author introduces Larry May's argument that joint harm increases responsibility, but posits a counterargument: that membership partially excuses responsibility. The methodology is outlined, emphasizing a four-step process involving scenario illustration, legal evaluation, examination of agency, and a framework for shared responsibility. The focus on emotional contagion and its effect on agency is highlighted as the central argument.

Collective Harm: This chapter likely presents the specific scenarios of collective harm used throughout the paper as a basis for subsequent analysis. The description of these scenarios, highlighting the absence of concerted effort, is crucial in establishing the context for evaluating moral and legal responsibility. Examples of such harm, possibly involving accidents or unintended consequences from group actions, are introduced to provide a concrete foundation for the subsequent legal and philosophical analyses.

Penal Joint Offender Discrimination: This chapter compares and contrasts the treatment of joint offenders versus sole perpetrators under German and British penal law. It likely analyzes specific sections of the respective penal codes (StGB for Germany), showing how legislation tends to penalize joint offenders more harshly, even in the absence of evidence of concerted planning. The chapter sets the stage for the philosophical arguments by highlighting the existing legal precedent and its potential conflict with considerations of individual agency.

Responsibility & Agency: This chapter delves into the philosophical concepts of legal and moral responsibility, emphasizing the critical role of agency. It likely explores the principle that proportionate punishment requires a corresponding level of moral responsibility. It likely argues that the capacity for agency—the ability to act freely and deliberately—is essential for assigning moral blame. The chapter likely introduces legal examples showing how penal laws implicitly recognize the importance of agency in determining punishment.

Shared Responsibility: This chapter presents the core argument of the thesis. It begins by rejecting both individualistic and holistic accounts of responsibility and introduces May's account of shared responsibility, which emphasizes the role of shared harmful attitudes. The author then presents their own account, focusing on emotional contagion as a factor that diminishes agency and, therefore, shared responsibility. This chapter likely incorporates Damásio's theory of emotion to explain how emotions influence behavior and how emotional contagion affects the actions of individuals within a group. The implications of emotional contagion for assigning moral and legal responsibility are thoroughly discussed.

Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)

Emotional contagion, moral responsibility, shared responsibility, agency, punishment, penal law, joint offenders, group affiliation, Damásio's theory of emotion, collective harm, German penal code (StGB), British penal law.

Häufig gestellte Fragen

What is the main topic of this document?

This document explores moral responsibility in group contexts, particularly when harm results from the actions of multiple individuals without a concerted plan. It examines how group affiliation and emotional contagion influence individual agency and responsibility, and it analyzes how joint offenders are treated under German and British penal law.

What are the objectives and key themes of this paper?

The paper aims to challenge existing arguments and legal frameworks concerning moral responsibility within group contexts, focusing on situations where harm results from multiple individuals, not a concerted plan. Key themes include the influence of group membership on moral responsibility, the legal treatment of joint offenders, the role of agency in moral responsibility and punishment, the impact of emotional contagion on individual agency and decision-making, and the development of a framework for understanding shared responsibility.

What is the methodology used in this paper?

The methodology involves a four-step process: illustrating collective harm scenarios, evaluating relevant legal frameworks, examining the philosophical concept of agency, and proposing a new framework for shared responsibility, with a central focus on emotional contagion and its effect on agency.

What are the specific legal frameworks analyzed in this paper?

The paper compares and contrasts the treatment of joint offenders under German and British penal law, analyzing specific sections of the respective penal codes (StGB for Germany) to show how legislation may penalize joint offenders more harshly, even without evidence of concerted planning.

What is the role of 'agency' in the author's argument?

Agency, the ability to act freely and deliberately, is considered essential for assigning moral blame. The author argues that proportionate punishment requires a corresponding level of moral responsibility, which is dependent on the capacity for agency. The paper explores how emotional contagion can diminish agency, affecting the assignment of shared responsibility.

What is emotional contagion, and how does it relate to shared responsibility?

Emotional contagion refers to the process by which emotions are transferred between individuals, influencing their behavior. The author argues that emotional contagion can diminish individual agency within a group, thereby affecting the degree of moral responsibility assigned to individuals in shared responsibility scenarios. The paper uses Damásio's theory of emotion to explain this effect.

What is May's account of shared responsibility, and how does the author's account differ?

May's account of shared responsibility emphasizes the role of shared harmful attitudes. The author agrees that responsibility can be shared but introduces and emphasizes the impact of emotional contagion on reducing individual agency, particularly in unplanned harmful outcomes.

What are some key words related to the topic?

Key words include: Emotional contagion, moral responsibility, shared responsibility, agency, punishment, penal law, joint offenders, group affiliation, Damásio's theory of emotion, collective harm, German penal code (StGB), British penal law.

What does "Penal Joint Offender Discrimination" mean in this context?

"Penal Joint Offender Discrimination" refers to the tendency, within legal systems like those of Germany and Britain, to penalize individuals involved in group offenses more severely than individuals who commit similar offenses alone, even when there is no evidence of prior planning or conspiracy.