Responsibility

One of the first things we're taught - or should be taught - is "take responsibility for your actions." But what does that mean? Most of us would probably say it means something like, if you mess up, admit it. You know, point to your chest and say, "my bad." If you break a window, cause a fender-bender, or don't do your homework because the basketball game was more interesting - admit it. 

And take the consequences. Accept the punishment. Pay for the window, don't complain about the bad grade.

But this is all after-the-fact responsibility. And there are two pitfalls (at least two) with after-the-fact responsibility. First, the damage is already done. There can be recompense or punishment (I would argue in some cases there can't be both, but that's another discussion), but the failure, or breakdown, or disaster, can't be reversed. Second, it's possible to be responsible for something for which we're not really responsible. That is, we may have to accept responsibility for actions over which we have no control. There are events we truly cannot foresee; not all of these are natural disasters.  I don't include lack of maintenance or vigilance, though fatigue or emotional distress may be mitigating factors. But who can predict where lightning will strike? We are also responsible for individuals who work for us who act against our wishes or instructions. Agents or messengers who betray our trust or simply don't do the job; we have to be responsible for their irresponsibility.

Of course, while we'd like legal responsibility and moral responsibility to not just intersect, but to synchronously overlap, that's not always the case. We are legally responsible for an employee who slaps a customer, to use an extreme case, but probably not morally responsible. We - or our company - will have to pay damages (and we'll probably fire the employee), but are we really responsible for the employee's behavior? Not if we believe in free will.

Conversely, there are cases where we may be morally responsible but not legally so. I think many would argue this is even more egregious. For example, a teacher who belittles a child - "Jonny, you can't draw! Why do you even try?" - is morally responsible for the harm to the child's feelings and psyche, but not legally so. There's no liability.

Taking responsibility serves as a test of character. I don't just mean learning from one's mistakes. I mean becoming a better person - working on the weaknesses (and we all have them), becoming aware of the flaws so that we begin with before-the-fact responsibility.

And that's really what we mean, or want to mean, when we say "take responsibility." Before-the-fact responsibility can be as simple as spell-checking or keeping accurate records. It often entails enlisting a second person - having an editor or doing a cross check. 

I recently supervised the loading of a kosher product from a storage tank into a tanker truck. The workers used several methods - electronic, mechanical, and human - to maintain the product integrity and to accurately measure the amount of product being shipped. Never underestimate the power or value of a paper trail.

Being human, we will inevitably experience the consequences of an after-the-fact responsibility. More important, though, is before-the-fact responsibility. Paying the bill fixes an after-the-fact. But only remorse, self-examination, self-improvement - teshuva, or return, in Hebrew - corrects a before-the-fact lapse. 

Perhaps after-the-fact is for others. Before-the-fact is for yourself.