Would you blame the Butterfly?:
Interplay of Consequences, Ambiguity and Responsibility

2. Literature Review
This section further elaborates on the lens and my positionality in this research—the strategies of dodging responsibility.

Disclaimers, by dictionary definition, are calculated linguistic devices that deny responsibility. McDonald’s “Caution: Hot,” for example, pre-secures non-liability while appearing merely informative. Unlike these companies that avoid responsibility by explicitly stating it, there are cases where saying nothing becomes a strategy in itself. According to legal advice, offering an apology may be taken as an admission of guilt; therefore, not apologising at all is often recommended (Gough, 2021). Moreover, to prevent one’s words from being taken out of context and later used against them, saying nothing beyond what is strictly necessary becomes crucial (Diaz, 2024).
There are also measures done in politics to avoid responsibility. Non-interventionism, a principle of customary international law, maintains that one state should not interfere in the domestic affairs of another (Stacy, 2019). This political stance strategically avoids responsibility by refusing to act. Similarly, the policy of deliberate ambiguity—a strategy where political actors intentionally avoid clear statements—allows multiple interpretations and leaves room for manoeuvre (Eisenberg, 1984). Both are techniques of “positioning” designed to strategically manage accountability.
Empson, in his work Seven Types of Ambiguity (2004), categorises different kinds of ambiguity and examines how language can remain open to multiple interpretations. When viewed alongside the political practice of deliberate ambiguity, This literary framework parallels political ambiguity, suggesting that language itself can be employed to delay or deflect accountability.
Similarly, in philosophy, Nietzsche’s notion of the mask reflects a performative concealment of being (Deleuze, 1983). Just as the seemingly kind phrase “caution” masks a corporate attempt to avoid liability, ambiguous language often veils transparent self-interest. In philosophy, Nietzsche’s mask implies the concealment or performance of one's existence. In this research, language functions as the mask, and intention becomes the concealed being behind it. The choice of language can thus lead directly to the question of whether one accepts responsibility—or not.