> Another perspective is that of course the institution's actions are the result of individuals' actions, what else could it possibly be?
Of course, but the naive part is believing all those individuals are spherical people in a vacuum, making independent decisions that are all well-thought-out and optimize for globally best outcome.
> That multinational that appears to have committed manslaughter would like us to believe nobody was responsible and it was just a tragic series of misunderstandings and communication breakdowns, so nobody should face any punishment. Are we fools to believe that?
Yes and no. It's foolish to believe individuals have much agency in this setting. Everyone, from the bottom tier to C-suite, is entangled in a web of interlocking incentives, that are ultimately anchored outside of any one company or institution[0]. Some people are handling large levers and could almost unilaterally make the company change course, but at a great cost to themselves[1], and thus it's foolish to expect them to become heroes, especially before an issue hits the news cycle. It's the same kind of error in thinking that rests behind ideas like "voting with your wallet".
That said, the conclusion that "nobody should face any punishment" is also wrong. Punishment is a powerful incentive that can cut through the tangled web. Even if you believe nobody is by themselves responsible for a bad thing, targeted punishment (or threat of it) at e.g. people holding the levers can encourage them to be more eager to pull those levers and steer the entire system away from causing the bad outcome.
----
[0] - Like, desire to keep your current standard of living, whatever it is, which may be driven not by your own need for comfort, but a desire to not disappoint your spouse and/or children.
[1] - And highly likely it would be reversed the moment they got fired for operating the lever wrong. Checks and balances :).
Of course, but the naive part is believing all those individuals are spherical people in a vacuum, making independent decisions that are all well-thought-out and optimize for globally best outcome.
> That multinational that appears to have committed manslaughter would like us to believe nobody was responsible and it was just a tragic series of misunderstandings and communication breakdowns, so nobody should face any punishment. Are we fools to believe that?
Yes and no. It's foolish to believe individuals have much agency in this setting. Everyone, from the bottom tier to C-suite, is entangled in a web of interlocking incentives, that are ultimately anchored outside of any one company or institution[0]. Some people are handling large levers and could almost unilaterally make the company change course, but at a great cost to themselves[1], and thus it's foolish to expect them to become heroes, especially before an issue hits the news cycle. It's the same kind of error in thinking that rests behind ideas like "voting with your wallet".
That said, the conclusion that "nobody should face any punishment" is also wrong. Punishment is a powerful incentive that can cut through the tangled web. Even if you believe nobody is by themselves responsible for a bad thing, targeted punishment (or threat of it) at e.g. people holding the levers can encourage them to be more eager to pull those levers and steer the entire system away from causing the bad outcome.
----
[0] - Like, desire to keep your current standard of living, whatever it is, which may be driven not by your own need for comfort, but a desire to not disappoint your spouse and/or children.
[1] - And highly likely it would be reversed the moment they got fired for operating the lever wrong. Checks and balances :).