Anonymity or Responsibility

How do we act when we can remain anonymous?

How does upfront responsibility influence our actions?

Anonymity and responsibility have a common factor. They are both relative to the perception of others. Anonymity is the lack of perception of others toward an individual's identity, meaning any actions taken by that someone, will not be perceived by others to have been performed by their identity which is known in other circumstances.
Responsibility is the direct known perception of others for a specified task. It’s kind of the opposite of being anonymous, as the individuals identity in relation to their actions, will be directly perceived by others.

Just when someone knows they have a responsibility, how someone acts when they believe their identity is anonymous, compared to when their identity is known, depends on the individual's values for motivation.

In 1 case, the person values more highly, themselves, and their status and identity as perceived by others. In this case, being anonymous makes a big difference. There prospect of how others perceive them, is removed. As this prospect is regularly a high value and priority, which normally directs their actions, now that status is removed, alternate motivations will take its place. Considering someone who normally takes high value in their own image (as perceived by others), it is likely that their core values prioritize themselves in general (otherwise their perceived status likely wouldn’t be very relevant to them). If their core values are focused on themselves, then in a situation where perception from others is removed, their highest motivating factor is left to be simply benefiting themselves. This would make their actions more self centered and selfish, compared to when they are not anonymous. When they are aware that others are perceiving their actions, they will take actions which are perceived to be better, which will often include benefiting others, or the environment in general.

In another case, the person values more highly, others, and the most effective and efficient contribution towards the overall sum. In this case, being anonymous should make little to no difference. Since their priority motivation is regardless of the perception of others, their motivating value would be unchanged with a lack of perception from others, of their actions. Their main motivator for action would still be to benefit others, including if their values are to make the most effective beneficial contribution to the overall total (of which their action affects).

For eg, someone who values status of perception of others, might donate $2 towards a sick kids charity, if the cashier asks them directly, and their friend is standing next to them. This is because they value how their friend and the cashier perceive them. But, if that same person was online, and an ad popped up asking them to donate $2 toward that same charity, they would choose not to donate. Since they can remain anonymous online, and nobody will know that they turned it down, other-perception is now removed, so that their highest value is benefiting themselves, which means keeping that $2.

On the other hand, someone who values the greater good, might refrain from throwing a plastic bottle in the trash, to recycle later, while their friends are with them and perceiving their actions. But, they would still make the same effort to carry a plastic bottle home to recycle, even in the circumstance of nobody watching their actions. The motivating factor is to reduce pollution and reduce resource + energy waste, as the overall most efficient contribution to the sum of that which is affected by that action. This value does not change with perception from others, or lack thereof.

Similarly, when responsibility is applicated to an individual who values themselves, they will take different actions in the circumstance of knowing others are perceiving their task of responsibility, compared to when nobody is watching them for a task, and they will focus on benefiting themselves. An individual who values overall efficiency, would likely take the same actions when labelled with responsible for a task, or alternatively having no obligation perceived by others.

If we want the total sum of the environment we live in + its inhabitants, to be the most effective, efficient, fair and beneficial, therefore making an improvement for the average individual and the overall, then perhaps values of the contributing individuals within that environment, should be re-analysed, and re-evaluated and re-adjusted. If the contributing individuals values can be readjusted to focus on the benefit of the total sum of components in an environment, rather than the benefit of the single self portion, then it would be an overall improvement.