Who is who?

Does being a moral agent immediately make them accountable for their actions?
Or a moral patient means being free from accountability? Numerous people argue over
whether or not a person in an inebriated state should be held morally responsible for
their actions. For this reason, the effects of alcohol on behavior are complex, but
research shows that getting drunk does not make one lose their moral bearings. In the
given scenario wherein a stressed and tired driver accidentally hits an intoxicated man
who has suddenly appeared in the middle of the road and demands compensation, who
is the moral agent, and who is the moral patient? An individual can be considered a
moral agent only if he or she is the doer of the action or at the very least the cause of it.
However, there are further prerequisites for responsibility to exist. Consequently, one is
not necessarily responsible for an action simply because they were an agent of it. In
contrast to moral agents, people are called moral patients when they take the role of
recipients, meaning that they are the ones who have immoral acts performed upon them
but within several conditions. Moreover, possession of moral rights and obligations
provides another lens through which to analyze the difference and connection between
these two. It is the moral obligation of moral agents to engage in morally evaluable
behaviors, and it is the moral right of moral patients to receive morally evaluable
treatments. Both sides must be held accountable for the actions that led to this situation,
and the prerequisites for moral accountability must be established, as must the
identification between moral patient and agent.

On account of the fact that the driver lost control and unintentionally hit the
intoxicated man, we can infer that he is the doer of the action. Hence, he is the moral
agent in the given case. Whilst the intoxicated man, who was hit, is subjected as the
moral patient. On the surface, these statements are true. However, the fact that the
driver did not intend to hit the man on purpose and that the man appeared out of
nowhere on the road should also be taken into account. For an individual to be
considered a moral agent, he or she must have these necessary conditions: an ability to
intend an action, an ability to perform an action, and an ability to autonomously choose
an intentional action (Rönnegard 2015). Since the driver did not intend to do the action,
he failed to meet all the requirements to be a moral agent. Additionally, the man was
intoxicated when he showed up on the road, a shared space used by vehicles. People
are aware that they should cross through it carefully and with light thread. Although he
may be inebriated, the man is nonetheless aware of that fact. He continued to cross the
road despite being well aware of the negative outcomes that will result from doing so.
This signifies that even though he is intoxicated, he still has the ability to intend an
action, perform an action, and judge a situation. The instant he appeared on the road
and caused the driver to lose control, his actions implicated him as the moral agent.
Therefore, we can conclude that the real moral patient in the scenario is the driver,
whilst the actual moral agent and morally accountable is the intoxicated man.

According to Paul Glenn, moral accountability of the human person which

centers the discussion on human acts and acts of man in which human acts is the
concern of moral accountability, not acts of man.
 Making judgments about whether a person is morally accountable for his
behavior, as well as holding ourselves and others liable for our own and other people's
actions and the outcomes of those actions is a fundamental and common aspect of our
moral practices and social connections. In order to be held morally accountable, a
number of predetermined conditions. The attribution conditions and the degree
conditions must be met. If the attribution condition is met, the person is responsible.
They are exempt from moral responsibility if they fail to fulfill even one of the
requirements. Meanwhile, if a person is morally accountable at all, the degree condition
only assesses how much responsibility they have. According to the degree of intensity
or seriousness of the injury caused by the wrongdoing. The greater the intensity of the
injury, the greater the moral accountability. The lesser the intensity of the injury, the
lesser the moral accountability. However, at some point, our intentions and decisions to
act in a particular way define us as being accountable for the circumstances, not the
consequences of our actions.