Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Moral responsibility and citizenship

By Helen Irving - posted Friday, 22 December 2006


There are many citizens whose capacities are limited, or whose lives are already over-burdened. For one reason or another, many people find just getting through the day to be an ordeal. We add an extra burden to their lives if we castigate them for failure to take part in extra activities that we assume to be the responsibility of citizens.

Just as this assumes too much of all citizens, it also diverts attention from the responsibility that should be demanded of others - non-citizens, governments, and corporations. We sometimes talk of “corporate citizenship” but corporations are not citizens. They should not, however, be let off the hook of exercising responsibility, any more than governments should - not as a moral attribute of citizenship, but as a requirement of law and democracy.

In conclusion, we should talk about moral or social responsibility more generally, and we should liberate it from talk about citizenship.

Advertisement

We should recognise that citizenship, in itself, does not make a person virtuous, and that being a non-citizen does not, in itself, make a person morally suspect.

If citizens speak out in support of terrorism, for example, what is unacceptable is not the fact that they are speaking as citizens. It is not like failing to support your country’s football team! What is unacceptable is the fact that they are supporting a destructive and nihilistic act. When non-citizens speak in support of terrorism, what is deplorable is not that they are doing this as non-citizens but, again, as supporters of such an act.

Whether we intend it or not, we reinforce a sense of alienation and undermine the sense of community we want to create if we talk in ways that divide people, categorising them as insiders and outsiders, rather than stressing our commonalities as people.

When we assume that citizenship carries with it a code of moral or social conduct, we do a disservice to virtuous non-citizens and we also blind ourselves to the causes of destructive and anti-social behaviour. The absence of citizenship does not cause it, and citizenship will not solve it.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

This article is based on a talk given at a seminar hosted by The Independent Scholars Association of Australia Inc in August 2006.



Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

55 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Dr Helen Irving teaches in the Faculty of Law at Sydney University. She is a contributor to Trusting the People: An Elected President for an Australian Republic, edited by Senator Andrew Murray (available July 2001 from the Senator's office).

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Helen Irving

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Helen Irving
Article Tools
Comment 55 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy