If you don’t fully control something, but you’re “in charge” or it’s “your job”, aren’t you accountable for it, not responsible?
- All hatLv 72 weeks ago
Yes, and it's a shlt position to be in.
- 1 month ago
One is not related to the other. You can't determine responsibility from who is or is not, accountable.
- 2 months ago
Gods are not fully in control of the world for the evil too reigns through the institutions of power is some ubiquitous defective way. Only the Supreme Court holds them to account. Leaders are responsible and accountable for all that happens in their land especially in situations they are aware of, have coerced and intervened in, and orchestrated in some way to illegal and unjust ends. The media is held to the publics right to know, to allay charges of conspiracy and perversion of justice and law, especially if a situation affects the nations honour and peoples freedom and right. To block all types of external communications towards exiling, oppressing to afford the demarcating, desecration and incrimination of the victim, towards its own favour. Power corrupts.
- tizzoseddyLv 62 months ago
Philosophically speaking, you're accountable for nothing more than your own actions, and responsible for their immediate results. Legally speaking, or in practice, it might be a different story.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- j153eLv 72 months ago
"Responsibility" is a doubling down of pledging (Latin spondere, to pledge); it is your honor to uphold whatever.
"Charge" reflects "entrust," which implies a pledging of honor.
Neither "responsibility" nor "charge" imply agency or causality. It is more like a captain of a Titanic who has responsibility for safe passage, and is charged with that. The iceberg is causal, but if the captain were cautious, slowing the ship so that it could not seriously be harmed by a collision, that would be responsible and showing he was in charge. That is a secondary type of causality, not being fully in control of things, but indeed accountable and responsible in a secondary way. Olive has learned this lesson, but not Mabel... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXB9r9GBmw8
- roderick_youngLv 72 months ago
In that situation, I would loosely say that the person is responsible. It's rare that anyone has full control of anything, so I'm content to say "responsible" when it really only means "largely responsible."
Also, when something bad happens randomly, a person can still be entirely responsible for the response. If a meteor crashes into the warehouse and starts a fire, did the person set off an alarm? Did they call the fire department? Did they run without telling anyone? What did they do, as far as the things that were in their span of control? "I'm not responsible for the fire" is a pathetically weak defense for someone who just took off running and nothing else.
"Accountable" means the same thing to me, in practical terms. Accountable or responsible for whatever was actually in the person's control.
- ProfGene.TogolotLv 72 months ago
You cold use that expression or say it happened under your watch but if too many of these incidents keep happening then you are also responsible because after the first one you did not take proper actions so you are responsible because of omission.
- Anonymous2 months ago
No you are being paid well to take the flack because you can, you are the manager but can be overridden if its detrimental to the business you are a scapegoat
- Anonymous2 months ago
Yeah, the "buck stops here," that is, after is goes through all the people who were supposed to be doing the actual work.
- martinLv 72 months ago
Accountable, responsible. You say potato, others say po-tah-to. Sure you're responsible, accountable too.