Atsakomybės "infliacija"
ENThe article deals with contemporary phenomenon that could be called ‘inflation of responsibility. This inflation of responsibility means that expanded and increased range of responsibility is accompanied by its ‘shallow’, devaluation and degradation. The author of this article is primarily interested in following Ricoeur’s analysis of transformations in juridical and moral concepts of responsibility. In contemporary civil law, one can see that the idea of responsibility for an action was substituted by the idea of the risk management as well as by the idea of responsibility without fault. Whereas, in the moral plane of responsibility, one can notice that judgement bearing on relationship between the author of action and its effect in the world was substituted by the idea of the vulnerable and fragile other person for whom one has responsibility. Here opens the field of unlimited responsibility for the humanity and its environment. Secondly, the analysis of these processes leads to reflection of general concept of responsibility, its conditions and criteria. The twofold direction of responsibility - as responsibility for (intentional object) and responsibility before (instance) - and its temporal nature determines ecstatic character of responsibility. In this way, the author admits that inflation is intrinsic to responsibility. However, in such case, the question about criteria of responsibility is even more urgent.On the one hand, criterion could be found by returning to traditional responsibility, which is centred on relationship between the author of action and its effect in the world. Ricceur upholds the view that Greek virtue of phronesis could help in recognizing among the innumerate consequences of action these for which we can legitimately be held responsible. On the other hand, if responsibility is imposed on us by the others or by new challenges, then the criterion of responsibility is not narrowable to our decision. For example, Georg Picht speaks about the competence as criterion that is grounded in the form of task itself. Thirdly, the analysis shows that inflation of responsibility is not avoidable because endless field of responsibility presents itself even if we have decided confine ourselves to concrete responsible decision. In this sense Jacques Derrida’s deconstruction reveals absolute responsibility as aporetic and undecidable. In the context of this deconstruction, Ricoeurian and Pichtian efforts to search for criteria of responsibility should be conceived not as knowledge or wisdom that belongs to acting subject or some historical Absolute, but as attempt to be responsible; attempt that never makes itself free from the risk of irresponsibility.
