ArpitGarg's Weblog

Wikipedia explains Moral Responsibility as, the status of morally deserving praise, blame, reward, or punishment for an act or omission, in accordance with one’s moral obligations.

He/she should take moral responsibility and resign. Of late I have been reading this statement a lot. This is very common in politics where probity is something which politicians have to abide by due to the public nature of their job. It is much less in private organizations.

This responsibility lies in one’s own moral obligations which differ from person to person. What might be moral obligation for Gandhi, might not be for Godse. I have been reading media reports on how/why head of a particular sports body is asked to resign taking so called moral responsibility. And the concerned person is not ready to.

There is a basic flaw which I find in the moral responsibility argument. When we know a person has done something wrong, it clearly makes him immoral. So in effect we are asking an immoral person to take moral responsibility. Which he clearly will not, as it means relinquishing the power.

On the other hand if a person has done nothing wrong, is honest and moral, the allegations will hurt him/her and in turn he/she will resign. Thus what “moral responsibility and resigning” conundrum does is, it makes moral people relinquish power while immoral people continue enjoying it.

What I feel is society and its pole bearers should get together and throw away the immoral people rather than asking for their resignation. In the particular case of this sports body, the moral people of the organization should get rid of the immoral. But the sad truth is, we are part of a society that celebrates immorality since it beds with power and money. And who would not want it?

Look around, which side would you rather be on? Honestly I would side with power, be it tainted. This is the chilling reality.