The Upholding of Personal Accountability in an Age of Ancestral Allegiance

Is it really acceptable to claim you are not responsible for your predecessor or ancestor's actions, or should we be held accountable for the deeds of our ancestors? This article explores the concept of personal accountability versus collective responsibility, with a focus on historical and contemporary examples.

Introduction to Personal Accountability

It is a common argument to assert that one should not bear the responsibility for the actions of their forebears, especially those who lived centuries ago. Take, for example, the case of a great-great-grandfather who abused choir boys under his care or the infamous Great-Uncle Adolf of the Holocaust. Yet, the idea that we should be held responsible for past actions is a challenging concept to accept.

My ancestors came to Canada in the 1800s, but how long must we, as descendants, be accountable for the mistakes they made? The notion that we continue to be punished for historical acts is something that challenges the principles of justice and fairness.

Collective Responsibility vs. Personal Accountability

To claim that we or anyone else is responsible for the actions of our ancestors, especially for crimes they committed, is to embrace the concept of collective responsibility. This idea suggests that groups of individuals can be held accountable for the actions of their members.

One of the longest-standing examples of collective responsibility is the belief in Jewish deicide. The blame for the death of Jesus was not only placed on the Jewish authorities present, but also on all successive generations of Jews. However, this claim was strongly refuted by the Second Vatican Council in 1965. They asserted that only the Jewish authorities present could be held responsible for the death of Jesus, and that subsequent generations of Jews should not be held accountable for this event.

The principle of collective responsibility is in stark contrast to the concept of personal accountability, which asserts that each individual should be responsible for their own actions and the consequences that follow. Contemporary legal systems recognize that guilt is a personal matter. The belief that a person should be held accountable for the actions of their ancestors goes against this fundamental legal principle.

The Enlightenment Ideals and "Tabula Rosa"

The rejection of collective responsibility and the acceptance of personal accountability are at the heart of the Enlightenment ideals and the concept of a "tabula rosa" or the idea of a "canvas of blank slate." The Enlightenment, a period of intellectual growth and philosophical inquiry, championed the idea that all people are born equal, regardless of their ancestry or heritage. This belief opposes the notion that some individuals are naturally superior or inferior based on their ancestors.

These ideals emphasize the goal of ensuring each person has the right to achieve their full potential, irrespective of their ancestry. The United States and other Western societies have strived for this ideal, although the journey has been long and complex. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once famously said, "The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice."

The Future of Personal Accountability

The struggle for individual accountability continues as societies around the world work to ensure that justice is served and that the wellbeing of all individuals is protected. The principles of personal accountability are crucial for building a fair and just society, one where each person is judged based on their actions and not on the actions of their forebears.

Conclusion

Responsibility for our actions, current and past, lies with us as individuals. We must embrace the principles of personal accountability, rather than allow ourselves to be held accountable for the actions of our ancestors. Rejection of collective responsibility in favor of personal accountability is a necessary step towards building a just and equitable society.