Omissions, causation and responsibility

In this paper I discuss a recent exchange of articles between Hugh McLachlan and John Coggon on the relationship between omissions, causation and moral responsibility. My aim is to contribute to their debate by isolating a presupposition I believe they both share, and by questioning that presupposition. The presupposition is that, at any given moment, there are countless things that I am omitting to do. This leads them both to give a distorted account of the relationship between causation and moral or (as the case may be) legal responsibility, and, in the case of Coggon, to claim that the law’s conception of causation is a fiction based on policy. Once it is seen that this presupposition is faulty, we can attain a more accurate view of the logical relationship between causation and moral responsibility in the case of omissions. This is important because it will enable us, in turn, to understand why the law continues to regard omissions as different, both logically and morally, from acts, and why the law seeks to track that logical and moral difference in the legal distinction it draws between withholding life-sustaining measures and euthanasia.

Reconceiving the good life : the key to sustainable globalisation

Resource-intensive, high-carbon, Western lifestyles are frequently criticised as unsustainable and deeply unsatisfying. However, these lifestyles are still attractive to the majority of Westerners and to a high proportion of the developing world’s middle classes. This paper argues that the imminent threat of catastrophic climate change constitutes an immediate political, economic and ethical challenge for citizens of the developed world that cannot be tackled by appeals to asceticism or restraint. There can be no solution to climate change until sustainable conceptions of the good life are developed that those in the west want to live and which others might want to live. While the ultimate solution to climate change is the development of low carbon lifestyles, it is important that government initiatives, governance arrangements and economic incentives support rather than undermine that search. Like the global financial crisis, the climate change crisis also demonstrates what happens when weaknesses in national, corporate and professional governance are exacerbated by weaknesses in global governance. In tackling the latter, it is critical the mistakes now evidenced in the former are avoided – including a rethinking of carbon market and carbon tax alternatives. It is also critical that individuals must take responsibility for their actions as consumers, voters and investors.

From national integrity systems to global integrity systems

The primary focus of corruption studies and anti-corruption activism has been corruption within sovereign states. However, over the last twenty years ‘globalization’, the flow of money, goods, people and ideas across borders, has threatened to overwhelm the system of sovereign states. Much activity has moved outside the control of nation states at the same time as nation states have ‘deregulated’ and in so doing have transferred power from those exercising governmental power at the nominal behest of the majority of its citizens to those with greater wealth and/or greater knowledge in markets in which knowledge is typically asymmetric. It is now recognized that many governance problems have arisen because of globalisation and can only be addressed by global solutions. It must also be recognized that governance problems at the national level contribute to governance problems and the global level and vice versa. Nevertheless, many of the lessons learned in combating corruption at the national level are relevant to a globalized world – in particular, the need for ethics and leadership in addition to legal and institutional reform; the need to integrate these measures into integrity systems; and the awareness of corruption systems. These are applied to areas of concern within sustainable globalisation raised by the conference – including peace and security, extractive industries, climate change and sustainable banking.

World Ethic Forum Conference Proceedings

World Ethics Forum conference proceedings : the joint conference of The International Institute for Public Ethics (IIPE) and The World Bank : leadership, ethics and integrity in public life : 9-11 April 2006, Keble College, University of Oxford UK /

An assessment of Georgia's National Integrity System : the GNISA project

Georgia’s ‘National Integrity Systems’ are the institutions, laws, procedures, practices and attitudes that encourage and support integrity in the exercise of power in modern Georgian society. Integrity systems function to ensure that power is exercised in a manner that is true to the values, purposes and duties for which that power is entrusted to, or held by, institutions and individual office-holders. This report presents the results of the Open Society Institute / Open Society – Georgia Foundation funded project Georgian National Integrity Systems Assessment (GNISA), conducted in 2005–2006 by Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development, Transparency International Georgia, Georgian Young Lawyers Association, in close cooperation with Griffith University Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law (Australia), and Tiri Group (UK), into how different elements of integrity systems interact, which combinations of institutions and reforms make for a strong integrity system, and how Georgia’s integrity systems should evolve to ensure coherence, not chaos in the way public integrity is maintained. Nevertheless all participants of the research may not share some conclusions given in the GNISA report.

From Greek temple to bird's nest : mapping, assessing and understanding national integrity systems

In this paper, I would like to outline the approach we have taken to mapping and assessing integrity systems and how this has led us to see integrity systems in a new light. Indeed, it has led us to a new visual metaphor for integrity systems – a bird’s nest rather than a Greek temple. This was the result of a pair of major research projects completed in partnership with Transparency International (TI). One worked on refining and extending the measurement of corruption. This, the second, looked at what was then the emerging institutional means for reducing corruption – ‘national integrity systems’

Fiduciary Duty and the Atmospheric Trust

This book explores the application of concepts of fiduciary duty or public trust in responding to the policy and governance challenges posed by policy problems that extend over multiple terms of government or even, as in the case of climate change, human generations. The volume brings together a range of perspectives including leading international thinkers on questions of fiduciary duty and public trust, Australia's most prominent judicial advocate for the application of fiduciary duty, top law scholars from several major universities, expert commentary from an influential climate policy think-tank and the views of long-serving highly respected past and present parliamentarians. The book presents a detailed examination of the nature and extent of fiduciary duty, looking at the example of Australia and having regard to developments in comparable jurisdictions. It identifies principles that could improve the accountability of political actors for their responses to major problems that may extend over multiple electoral cycles.

Me and my body : the relevance of the difference for the distinction between withdrawing life support and euthanasia

In this paper I discuss David Shaw’s claim that the body of a terminally ill person can be conceived as a kind of life-support, akin to an artificial ventilator. I claim that this position rests upon an untenable dualism between the mind and the body. Given that dualism continues to be attractive to some thinkers, I attempt to diagnose the reasons why it continues to be attractive, as well as to demonstrate its incoherence, drawing on some recent work in the philosophy of psychology. I conclude that, if my criticisms are sound, Shaw’s attempt to deny the distinction between withdrawal and euthanasia fails.

Intention, foresight and ending life : a response to "The Double Effect effect" by Charles Foster, Jonathan Herring, Karen Melham and Tony Hope, (CQ 20(1))

In this paper I examine the recent arguments by Charles Foster, Jonathan Herring, Karen Melham and Tony Hope against the utility of the doctrine of double effect. One basis on which they reject the utility of the doctrine is their claim that it is notoriously difficult to apply what they identify as its 'core' component, namely, the distinction between intention and foresight. It is this contention that is the primarily focus of my article. I argue against this claim that the intention/foresight distinction remains a fundamental part of the law in those jurisdictions where intention remains an element of the offence of murder and that, accordingly, it is essential ro resolve the putative difficulties of applying the intention/foresight distinction so as to ensure the integrity of the law of murder. I argue that the main reasons advanced for the claim that the intention/foresight distinction is difficult to apply are ultimately unsustainable, and that the distinction is not as difficult to apply as the authors suggest.

When does pain and distress relief hastening death become killing?

This paper discusses the question of when pain and distress relief known to hasten death would cross the line between permissible conduct and killing. The issue is discussed in the context of organ donation after cardiac death, and considers the administration of analgesics, sedatives, and the controversial use of paralysing agents in the provision and withdrawal of ventilation.