Or, to pan out, does collective responsibility exist? If it does, and if responsibility requires consent, does refusal of consent by one member of a group negate any collective responsibility for all members on a given topic? Or does the acceptance of responsibility by a majority confer it on the few in a Democratic fashion? If not - if responsibility cannot be forced, but only accepted - how should society ethically handle dissention? Can ethics even exist as a social construct if collective responsibility doesn't exist?
(I don't have a specific responsible topic in mind. This is a reductivist navel-gazing exercise.)
That makes my head hurt! Only thing that jumps to mind is that I believe individual responsibility can exist absent collective responsibility. I know some try to make the converse true as well, but that to me is a little more dubious a proposition.
In one sense, responsibility requires consent as in "taking" responsibility. In another sense it's thrust upon you without consent. Like how you are responsible to follow the law. Even if you are ignorant about a particular law, you can still be prosecuted. I think it's also implicit that you can only be responsible for your own actions and not things beyond your control. But somehow it's considered virtuous to take responsibility for people under your command and unintended outcomes you "should" have foreseen.
Responsibility is a myth, a social construct, sometimes adopted by one for oneself, but very often projected by one onto others.
To the extent responsibility = blame, it can be thrust upon you whether or not you accept it. In that respect, responsibility requires consent. Not to go too far off topic, but Mr. Trump is a master at not accepting responsibility for his words/actions. He can say whatever he wants, regardless of truth, and it doesn't stick. A master bullshitter.
To the extent responsibility = having to bear consequences, then that obviously can occur without consent and often does. Convicted of a crime? You are deprived of liberty as you bear the responsibility for the punishment.
To the extent responsibility = the only one capable of effecting change, then "accepting" responsibility does in fact require consent. Consider the drug addict who is "responsible" for his life such that only he is capable of becoming a non-drug-addict.
Accordingly, I answer your questions thus: Responsibility may require consent, depending on which type of responsibility you are referencing. Collective responsibility exists if you're talking about blame and refusal by one to blame does not negate the balance of the group's direction of blame. Acceptance of responsibility by the majority in the sense of applying consequences does in fact confer responsibility on the few and this is also the way dissension is handled. Ethics, in this manner, is simply an extension of this style of responsibility.
(I don't have a specific responsible topic in mind. This is a reductivist navel-gazing exercise.)
As much as I enjoy navel gazing, you really didn't give me enough to work with. I have no idea what you are talking about. Funny thing about ethics, the specifics really are necessary.
Not to take this in another direction, but I think the recent discussions with regard to sexual abuse have revealed the tenuousness of "consent." It's something that I am personally happy about. The "everything is ok if its two consenting adults" not only frames (I would say reduces the scope of) the moral argument but neglects the idea that "consent" is oftentimes fluid. I don't consent today to the same things I consented to in the past. I can only consent on the information I have been given, which is often incomplete. I don't consent to do certain things with certain people but will consent to do them with others. My douchebag brother in middle age still maintains that I "consented" to give him my 1975 Henry Aaron when he was kneeling over me with a string theory defying loogie hanging within centimeters of my eyeballs.
Back to your question, I think your question is, generally speaking, a moral casting of the perennial philosophical question of the "one and the many" which is highly complex and can be discussed from many different angles. I would proffer giving a situation to get the ball rolling. For instance, as an American citizen that lives within a representational political system, I "consent" every day to things that I do not morally agree with but am responsible for in terms of my status as an American citizen.
I think about responsibility as it relates to "authority" more than "consent." Roughly analogous to how "maintenance" relates to "ownership." Rule of thumb being that taking responsibility where you don't have authority amounts to the formation of a black-hole suck zone of life energy. OTOH, not taking responsibility where you do exert authority is tantamount to some form of villainy.
When responsible (able to respond on their own behalf) adults enter into contract, there is always one party who proffers contract and a second party who consents to contract with likely some interim negotiation. In most contractual situations, there is some degree of assumption that the party who initially offered contract holds more authority, and therefore more responsibility, than the party who accepted or consented to contract. This is somewhat clear in situations of sexual contract, but much more clear in situations of employment contract if you consider hiring somebody who offered their services as a general handyman contractor in an ad he placed vs. placing your own ad for a handyman position. For instance, you would assume that the contractor would make his own plans for lunch break, whereas you would have authority/responsibility over lunch break for person who responded to your ad.
I recently had to do a short training course on new legislation in the realm of physically restraining children who are out-of-control. The point was made that the exception to these rather complex rules would be a situation in which you were obliged to save a child from the natural consequences of dangerous impulsive behavior; for instance, grabbing a 5 year old who is about to run into traffic. I think of this as being the sort of instance in which moral, legal, and physical authority/responsibility might be at odds. Especially if you contrast with a situation where I am theoretically in authority over a 6'2" 17 year old who has decided he no longer wants to be at school that day. Lacking any semblance of physical authority, I just wave "Goodbye" and erase P for present and write A for absent.
I just wave "Goodbye" and erase P for present and write A for absent.
So I am walking down the street headed to a March Against Breast Cancer thinking its a good place to meet women when I observe a woman whom I'm guessing has a myriad of sexual partners and a large teenager type who at best, reads backwards. After a brief conversation, the obviously polyamorous woman non-chalantly waves off the obviously special needs man-child and in his response to her insouciance he pivots into the street only to get hit by the short school bus that just dropped him off. Now he's lying in the road having some type of seizure and I'm thinking "Christ, am I responsible for this bullshit?" So I'm standing there trying to convince myself that I really was primarily interested in saving millions of breasts which from an objective standpoint, I have to believe is more important than saving one intransigent special needs teenager but the kid is now foaming at the mouth and the dispassionate multiple sex partner lady is back in school most likely flirting with the young dumb as a rock but hunky janitor as she obviously doesn't give two shits about her students. I'm not a medical professional but I can utter the words "You will be OK" before the most likely dyslexic oversized teen slips into a coma that you have to believe is going to be boring as shit in terms of how comas go. Before I know it, due to the weight of my moral conscience and some faint recollection of something called "depraved indifference" I walk over to the large teen, kneel down and say "You will be OK" to which he responds "So Think You?." In the distance I hear the screams of sirens but the kids eyeballs are now staring at his own cranium and I say "Listen, that woman you were talking to, she sleeps with more than one guy, right?" At which point the prodigiously large teen musters what will ultimately be his final words "Yeah, hell."
I doubt that you would guess my theoretical chosen practice of polyamory from my IRL appearance, but interesting note would be that both THF and I chose wild animals dressed in costumes for our avatars. Also, any 17 year old I waved out of the classroom would more likely resemble Ferris Bueller (or some forum member at age 17) telling me he has to leave Geometry 2 in order to lead the student contingent in the March Against Breast Cancer that afternoon
However, you did bring up a good example of the exception to the rule of personal responsibility being enough. In situations, such as public schools, where the general population is represented, it becomes very clear that there are individuals who will likely never be able to support themselves in our economy. Bottom rung would be the very slow, but well-behaved girl who you imagine might be able to grow up to be the woman who restocks the breakfast buffet at a Comfort Inn, if she doesn't have any children herself. Former steel-workers gone fishing collecting SSDI aside, who should take responsibility for the 3-5% of the adult population which is too low-functioning for an entrepreneur to turn to profit at minimum wage without subsidy?
: